Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Woods v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


January 22, 2008

HENRY WOODS, MOVANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

I. Background

Following a jury trial that commenced on January 27, 1997, movant Henry Woods was convicted of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, and distributing and possessing with intent to distribute in excess of fifty grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Dkt. No. 747. Woods was then principally sentenced by the District Court to a term of three hundred twenty four months imprisonment. Dkt. No. 968. Woods appealed the jury's verdict and his sentence to the Second Circuit, however that court affirmed Woods' conviction and sentence in all respects. See United States v. Giles et al., No. 97-1663, 2000 WL 424142 (2d Cir. 2000).

On February 23, 2005, Woods filed a motion seeking a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(3)*fn1 based upon his claim that in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court declared the United States Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional.

See Dkt. No. 1302.

The Government filed papers in opposition to that application on June 27, 2007. See Dkt. No. 1328.

II. Discussion

In Cortorreal v. United States, 486 F.3d 742 (2d Cir. 2007), the Court addressed appellant's claim that because the Supreme Court's decision in Booker constituted an implicit modification of the United States Sentencing Guidelines as well as a new rule of law that was retroactive to cases on collateral review, the appellant was entitled to re-sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Cortorreal, 486 F.3d at 743. In rejecting that argument, that court held: because Booker was not a guideline amendment promulgated by the Sentencing Commission, the terms of Section 3582(c)(2) do not apply, and therefore the Booker decision cannot be the basis for a Section 3582(c)(2) motion to modify a sentence.

Cortorreal, 486 F.3d at 744.

Based upon the court's holding in Cortorreal, this Court denies Woods' application for a modification in his sentence.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, that Woods' motion for a reduction in his sentence (Dkt. No. 1302) is DENIED, and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the parties by regular or electronic mail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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