United States v. Serrano

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JORGE LUIS SERRANO, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 9, 2016

No. CR10-4067-MWB (N.D. Iowa Dec. 9, 2016)

Opinion

No. CR10-4067-MWB

12-09-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JORGE LUIS SERRANO, Defendant.

MARK W. BENNETT U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

This case is before me on defendant Jorge Luis Serrano's pro se Motion for Modification or Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (docket no. 215). In his motion, Serrano seeks a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

Serrano previously filed a pro se Motion for Modification of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (docket no. 188), in which he sought the same relief he seeks in his current motion. I denied Serrano's prior motion (docket no. 200). As I explained:

Here, the court is unable to rely on Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) to reduce the defendant's sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG §1B1.10. See generally United States v. Curry, 584 F.3d 1102, 1104 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing United States v. Wyatt , 115 F.3d 606, 608-09 (8th Cir. 1997)) (explaining requirements under USSG §1B1.10(b)). Because the court imposed a term of imprisonment outside the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing as a result of a downward

variance, the court is unable to reduce the defendant's sentence. See USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) ("Except as provided in subdivision (B), the court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range determined under subdivision (1) of this subsection."); USSG §1B1.10, comment. (n.3) (making clear that a reduction is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if the court imposed a term of imprisonment outside the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing as a result of a downward departure or variance and such term is less than the minimum term of imprisonment provided by the amended guideline range); see also United States v. Anderson, 686 F.3d 585, 588-90 (8th Cir. 2012) (noting that not all downward departures and variances that applied to the original sentence are available under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)); United States v. Maxwell , 590 F.3d 585, 588 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussing USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(A)); United States v. Higgins, 584 F.3d 770, 772 (8^th Cir. 2009) (same); United States v. Murphy, 578 F.3d 719, 721 (8th Cir. 2009) (same); United States v. Wagner , 563 F.3d 680, 682 (8th Cir. 2009) (emphasizing that the authority to reduce a sentence is constrained by USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(A).

Order at 3-4 (docket no. 200).

After reviewing the record, I find no legal or factual basis for me to modify or amend my prior order denying defendant Serrano's pro se Motion for Modification of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Therefore, defendant Serrano's current pro se Motion for Modification or Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is denied for the same reasons stated in my prior order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 9th day of December, 2016.

/s/_________

MARK W. BENNETT

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA