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.

United States v. McLaughlin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


June 19, 2007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RICO MCLAUGHLIN, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul L. Friedman United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant Rico McLaughlin's motion [80] for modification of an imposed term of imprisonment due to a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o) ("Mot. to Modify"), and his motion [81] for leave to supplement that motion.*fn1 The Court will grant the motion to supplement and will deny the motion for modification of the sentence. Mr. McLaughlin was sentenced by this Court on January 28, 1997, and he then appealed. The D.C. Circuit rejected arguments under the Sixth Amendment and the Double Jeopardy Clause, reversed one of defendant's two D.C. assault convictions, and vacated the concurrent sentence imposed for that offense. See United States v. McLaughlin, 164 F.3d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The Court resentenced the defendant on March 30, 1999.

Defendant argues that Amendment 591 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines caused there to be a "sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 994(o)" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See Mot. to Modify at 4. If that were the case, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) provides that upon motion of the defendant or the Bureau of Prisons, the Court "may reduce the term of imprisonment." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis provided).

The Court is not convinced, from its review of Amendment 591, that it constitutes a lowering of a sentencing range within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Furthermore, even if it did, in the facts and circumstances of this case the Court would decline to use its discretion to modify defendant's sentence.*fn2 Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion [81] for leave to supplement is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion [80] for modification of an imposed term of imprisonment due to a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o) is DENIED.

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.