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.

Ventura-Nieves v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. New York

May 11, 2017

PABLO VENTURA-NIEVES, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant.

          Attorney for Petitioner Petitioner, pro se Pablo Ventura-Nieves

          Attorney for Defendant JOON H. KIM Acting United States Attorney Southern District of New York One Saint Andrew's Plaza

          OPINION

          SWEET, D.J.

         Petitioner Pablo Ventura-Nieves ("Ventura-Nieves" or the "Petitioner") has moved for reconsideration of the Court's November 4, 2016, opinion denying Petitioner's motion, as construed by the Court, for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Cr. Dkt. 368.) For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is granted, and his motion for a reduction of his sentence is denied.

         Facts

         The facts underlying this action were previously set forth in the sentencing opinion of this Court dated December 4, 2014, (see Cr. Dkt. 206), knowledge of which is assumed. Certain facts are repeated in part as relevant to the instant motion.

         On February 26, 2014, Ventura-Nieves pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms and more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. The Court issued a sentencing opinion on December 4, 2016, adopting the November 2013 Guidelines calculations of the plea agreement and indicating the Court's intent to impose a below-Guidelines sentence of 120 months' imprisonment. (Cr. Dkt. 206.)

         At Ventura-Nieves' sentencing, based on both parties' subsequent sentencing submissions that recommended the Court calculate using the newly amended 2014 Sentencing Guidelines, the Court imposed the bottom of the newly-calculated Guidelines range, 135 months' imprisonment. (Cr. Dkt. 271 at 11:6.) The Court found Ventura-Nieves's "guidelines sentence . . . appropriate because of the role played by the defendant" in the conspiracy, which the Court stated was "integral." (Id. at 10:21-25.)

         Prior Proceedings

         On October 31, 2016, Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Cr. Dkt. 367; Civ. Dkt. 1.) On November 15, 2016, the Court, construing Petitioner's petition as a motion for a sentence reduction due to Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), denied it because Ventura-Nieves was properly sentenced under the amended Guidelines range. (Cr. Dkt. 368/ Civ. Dkt. 2.) On November 21, 2016, the Court received Petitioner's Memorandum of Law in support of his habeas petition, although Petitioner had certified the document was physically mailed to the Clerk of Court nine days earlier. (Cr. Dkt. 374; Civ. Dkt. 3.)

         On December 1, 2016, Petitioner moved for reconsideration of his habeas petition. (Civ. Dkt. 4.) The instant motion was taken on submission and marked fully submitted on January 19, 2017.

         Applicable Standard

         A party moving for reconsideration "must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion." Eisenmann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393, 395 n.2 (2d Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "The major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change of controlling law, the available of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration should be granted where "the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).

         The Court Will Reconsider ...


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.