Source: http://ia.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20141114_0001006.NIA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-03 11:40:10
Document Index: 736999346

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§ 3582', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§ 3582', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§ 3553', '§ 3582', '§1', '§1']

| United States v. McGinty
United States v. McGinty
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,v.CHRISTOPHER JON MCGINTY, Defendant.
Donald E. O Brien, Senior Judge.
On July 18, 2014, the United States Sentencing Commission unanimously voted to apply Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) retroactively to most drug trafficking offenses, and it set November 1, 2014, as the date that Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) would go into effect. Stated differently, Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) is included within subsection (d) of USSG §1B1.10. Consequently, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG §1B1.10, the court may rely on Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) to reduce a defendant’s sentence. But, even if Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) is applicable, a special limiting instruction applies: “The court shall not order a reduced term of imprisonment based on Amendment 782 unless the effective date of the court’s order is November 1, 2015, or later.” USSG §1B1.10(e)(1); see also Amendment 788 (amending USSG §1B1.10).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG §1B1.10, the court concludes that a sentence reduction is justified. See United States v. Curry, 584 F.3d 1102, 1104 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing United States v. Wyatt, 115 F.3d 606, 608-09 (8th Cir. 1997)) (explaining requirements under USSG §1B1.10(b)). Having reviewed the defendant’s file, the provisions and commentary of USSG §1B1.10, the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or community that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment and the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct, the court deems it appropriate to exercise its discretion and grant the defendant the maximum reduction permitted under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG §1B1.10.[2] The defendant’s previously imposed 235 month term of imprisonment, as reflected in the judgment dated September 26, 2000, is reduced to time served as of November 2, 2015. See USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(C) (prohibiting a term of imprisonment that is “less than the term of imprisonment the defendant has already served”); see also id., comment. (n.3) (stating that the term of imprisonment may not be reduced below time served). The defendant’s new sentence of time served applies to count 1 of the indictment. Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated September 26, 2000, remain in effect. The duration and conditions of the defendant’s supervised release remain unchanged. This order will take effect on November 2, 2015.
The clerk’s office is directed to send and fax or email a copy of this order to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, that is, the place where the defendant, USM No. 16335-047, is currently incarcerated. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is directed to release the defendant on November 2, 2015.[3] The clerk’s office is also directed to send a copy of this order to the defendant, the office of the Federal Public Defender, the office of the United States Attorney and the office of United States Probation.