United States v. Avila, 02-cr-464-8

• Decision Date: 29 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 02-cr-464-8,02-cr-464-8
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. OMAR AVILA Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. OMAR AVILA Defendant.

No. 02-cr-464-8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

March 29, 2016

Judge Ronald A. Guzmán

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The Court denies Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Previous Filed Motion for Reduction of Sentence [613] and his Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) [624].

STATEMENT

On November 3, 2004, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of drug conspiracy and racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) and one count of murder (18 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A)). (Def.'s Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 362] at 2.) As part of his plea agreement, he admitted to various egregious acts beyond murder and drug trafficking, such as abducting, torturing, sodomizing, murdering, and burning his victim. (Id.) He now moves to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), claiming that Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines reduced the applicable sentencing range.

Under Section 3582(c)(2), courts may reduce a defendant's previously imposed sentence where "[he] has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o)." 18 §

Page 2

U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). But that has not happened here. While Amendment 782 indeed lowered the penalties for most drug offenses in Guidelines Section 2D1.1, see U.S.S.G App. C., Amend. 782, Defendant was not sentenced under that provision. Rather, the parties agree that he was sentenced under Guidelines Section 2A1.1, (see Gov't's Br. in Opp'n [Dkt # 626] at 5; Def.'s Mot. [Dkt # 613] at 1), which applies if a defendant's victim is killed under circumstances that constitute murder, see U.S.S.G. §§ 2A1.1(a), 2D1.1(d). Accordingly, Amendment 782 did not lower Defendant's applicable sentencing range, and his motion therefore fails as a matter of law. See United States v. Taylor, 778 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2015) (explaining that if a defendant's applicable guideline range was not lowered by amendment, then courts must deny relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)); United States v. Hatfield, No. 08-CR-30020-DRH-2, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115604, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2015) (rejecting a defendant's Amendment 782 argument because he was sentenced under the first-degree murder guidelines rather than the drug quantity table).

CONCLUSION

The Court denies Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Previous Filed Motion for Reduction of Sentence [613] and his Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) [624].

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: March 29, 2016

/s/_________

HON. RONALD A. GUZMÁN

United States District Judge