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. Watts

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington

April 8, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
DION L. WATTS, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chief District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendant Dion Watts' motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (DE 94). The amendment reduces by two the offense levels assigned in the Drug Quantity Table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, resulting in lower guideline ranges for most drug trafficking offenses.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three charges, only one of which was a drug trafficking offense. The other two charges were using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)) and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)). (DE 76, Judgment). The Court sentenced the defendant to 14 months for the drug-trafficking and felon-in-possession charges, to be served concurrently. It sentenced him to 100 months for using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, to be served consecutively to the sentences on the other two charges, for a total term of 114 months.

The defendant's sentence is not impacted by Amendment 782. This is because his guideline calculation was not based on the drug charge or the Drug Quantity Table in Section 2D1.1 of the sentencing guidelines. The defendant's guideline calculations were instead based upon the felon-in-possession charge because those were the highest. Thus, the defendant's applicable guideline range has not been lowered as a result of Amendment 782. For these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that the defendant's motion for a sentencing reduction (DE 94) is DENIED.

The defendant has also moved the Court to appoint counsel to represent him on this matter (DE 92). There is no constitutional right to counsel or a hearing on a motion for a sentence reduction filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 795 (11th Cir.2009); United States v. Harris, 568 F.3d 666, 669 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512-13 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Reddick, 53 F.3d 462, 465 (2nd Cir. 1995).

Because here it is clear on the record that the defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction, the Court hereby ORDERS that his motion to appoint counsel (DE 92) is DENIED.


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.