Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TORRES v. UNITED STATES

August 24, 1993

ROBERT M. TORRES, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN E. SPRIZZO

 SPRIZZO, D.J.:

 Petitioner pro se Robert M. Torres moves for a one-level reduction of his offense level. For the reasons that follow, petitioner's motion is denied.

 DISCUSSION

 Petitioner pro se brings a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) *fn1" seeking a one-level reduction of his offense level pursuant to section 3E1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, as amended on November 1, 1992, which allows a further reduction of one-level where, inter alia, a defendant "timely notifies authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty . . . ." See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Appendix C, Amendment 459. Petitioner had pled guilty to a charge of narcotics conspiracy on June 27, 1990, and had received the benefit of a 2 level reduction for acceptance of responsibility at his sentencing on February 28, 1991.

 A Sentencing Commission policy statement, at section 1B1.10, governs the retroactive application of amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s. The amendment at issue here, Amendment 459, is not one of the eleven amendments listed in section 1B1.10 which are to be applied retroactively. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), p.s. Since 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) expressly permits reduction of sentences only where consistent with policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, and section 1B1.10 expressly states that retroactive application of an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines not listed in section 1B1.10 is not consistent with that policy statement, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a), p.s., the Court is constrained to deny the instant motion. See United States v. Rodriguez, 989 F.2d 583, 586-87 (2d Cir. 1993); accord United States v. Caceda, 990 F.2d 707, 710 (2d Cir. 1993).

 CONCLUSION

 For the reasons stated above, petitioner's motion for a reduction of his offense level is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the above-captioned action.

 It is SO ORDERED.

 Dated: New York, New York

 August 24, 1993

 John E. Sprizzo

 United States District ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.