USA v. Green et al

District of Nebraska, ned-8:2005-cr-00288-35455

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying {{160}} Motion for Reconsideration as to Allen Green (1). This action is dismissed. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

8:05-cr-00288-JFB-FG3 Doc # 162 Filed: 03/07/12 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 640 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,)) 8:05CR288 Plaintiff,)) v.)) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ALLEN GREEN,)) Defendant.)) This matter is before the court on the defendant's pro se motion for reconsideration of the court's earlier order denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 ("FSA"), which reduced sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, lowering the statutory sentencing ratio from 100:1 to 18:1. See Pub. L. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (Aug. 3, 2010). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the FSA is not retroactively applicable to sentences determined before its enactment. United States v. Orr, 636 F.3d 944, 957-58 (8th Cir. 2011). Although the United States Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari to resolve the issue of whether the FSA's provisions apply to defendants whose conduct occurred prior to the act but had not been sentenced when the FSA became law, the defendant would not benefit from a beneficial ruling on that issue since both the defendant's conduct and his sentencing occurred long before the FSA was enacted. See Hill v. United States, 417 F. App'x 560 (7th Cir. 2011), cert. granted, — S. Ct. —, 2011 WL 3472365 (U.S. Nov. 28, 2011) (No. 11-5721), and United States v. Fisher, 635 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2011), cert. granted sub nom Dorsey v. United States, — S. Ct.—, 2011 WL 3422126 (U.S. Nov. 28, 8:05-cr-00288-JFB-FG3 Doc # 162 Filed: 03/07/12 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 641 2011) (No. 11-5683). Accordingly, the court finds that the motion for reconsideration should be denied. IT IS ORDERED: 1. The defendant's motion to reconsider (Filing No. 160) is denied. 2. This action is dismissed. DATED this 7th day of March, 2012. BY THE COURT: s/ Joseph F. Bataillon United States District Judge 2