Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20090616_0000832.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-09-19 19:07:21
Document Index: 687105105

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3582', '§ 3582', '§ 3582', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 3582']

Brian Rush seeks a reduction in his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Doc. 163). The Court appointed counsel to represent Rush on this issue, and counsel has now moved to withdraw on the basis that he can make no non-frivolous arguments in support of a reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (Doc. 176). See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Rush did not respond to the motion to withdraw, even though he was given an opportunity to do so.
Rush is not entitled to a reduction in his sentence because he cannot satisfy the first criterion of that statute; he was not "sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o)." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Amendments 706 and 711 amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) as of November 1, 2007, to lower by two points the base offense levels associated with various amounts of crack cocaine. The Sentencing Commission amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) intending to alter the disparity in sentences involving crack cocaine and sentences involving powder cocaine. Rush, however, was sentenced based on his base offense level set forth in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 ("Career Offender"), not his base offense level set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See Forman, 553 F.3d at 589-90. Thus, his guideline range has not been lowered, and he cannot satisfy the first criterion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for obtaining a sentence reduction.
The Court therefore GRANTS counsel's motion to withdraw (Doc. 176) and DISMISSES the motion for a sentence reduction (Doc. 163) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.