USA v. Presley et al

 	   	    	 ! " #  $  % &'
#()*+ **+ )* 	)$* $# 	*
,
----------"----------
#  ".  
$" (/
#(/
01 . /
! 	 ".  1 . /
(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) 	Defendant’s Attorney
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
#2. 	 ,     ,  , 3   !""  ,    #  $
%&'  ,  ..2". .2" 4"   0 "   ,,"
" 4" 5 	064 	07  .   	46, #  "  $..""2 " #  $
%88 9, "  " ,.9: , 206" . " ,#;%3
, "  "" ,#  $ %&''&9,  < ,, 6 22040 9
IT IS ORDERED,, ."/
+()+  	 ; (*+,   ="2 	 "06.2" "   .2". (as reflected in
the last judgment issued)  	.,"is reduced to
(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
+< 2", 7" 2  9002 "", > .   	",00 .

IT IS SO ORDERED
/ Judge’s signature

/ (if different from order date) 	Printed name and title
Southern District of Alabama
CHARLES WILLIAM STOKES 	06-0143-WS
✔
✔
February 11, 2016 	s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On February 27, 2015, the Court entered an Order (doc. 207) denying Stokes' first 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion based
on Amendment 782. The critical finding of the February 27 Order was that "Stokes's base offense level has not
changed. Because Amendment 782 does not change the calculations used to fix Stokes's guideline range, no reduction
of sentence is appropriate under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2)." Case law is legion for the proposition that 3582(c)(2) relief is
unavailable if the retroactive amendment does not actually lower the defendant's guideline range. See, e.g., United
States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 376 (11th Cir. 2012) ("[w]here a retroactively applicable guideline amendment ... does not
alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, s 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in
sentence"); United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1205 (11th Cir. 2012) ("a court cannot use an amendment to reduce
a sentence in a particular case unless that amendment actually lowers the guidelines range in that case"). Thus, Stokes
in ineligible for 3582(c)(2) sentencing relief. The renewed 3582(c)(2) motion filed by Stokes on February 4, 2016 is
denied, notwithstanding his completion of the Residential Drug Abuse Program and his welding apprenticeship, because
Amendment 782 does not have the effect of lowering his guideline range. See USSG 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
Case 1:06-cr-00143-TFM-C Doc# 209 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID#
<pageID>