United Statesv.Clarke

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of IndianaNov 29, 2011
Case No: 1:98CR00121-002 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 29, 2011)

Case No: 1:98CR00121-002 USM No: 05860-028

11-29-2011

United States of America v. Osmund Clarke

Juval Scott Defendant's Attorney


Date of Original Judgment: 09/27/1999


Date of Previous Amended Judgment: ___________________________


(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any)


Juval Scott


Defendant's Attorney


ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of [√] the defendant [ ] the Director of the Bureau of Prisons[ ] the court under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

[√] DENIED. [ ] GRANTED and the defendant's previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in the last judgment issued) of ___________________________ months is reduced to ___________________________ .

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Effective Date: 11/29/2011


Unless otherwise indicated, the effective date of this order shall be ten (10) days after order date.

(if different from order date)


___________________________


Judge's signature


The Honorable Sarah Evans Barker


Printed name and title


As directed by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the Court has considered the relevant factors in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and determined a sentence reduction is not appropriate for the following reason(s):

_____ 1) The defendant is not eligible for a reduction because the amendments listed in subsection (c) of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 are not applicable to the defendant.

_ 2) The amendment is listed in subsection (c) of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and is applicable to the defendant, but it does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range (e.g. a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, binding plea agreement, career offender status).

3) The defendant is eligible for a reduction under this amendment, but the Court has determined such a reduction is not appropriate because of the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that may be posed by a reduction in sentence. (Application Note 1(B) of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.)

_ 4) The defendant is eligible for a reduction under this amendment. However, the Court has determined the post-sentencing conduct demonstrates the defendant may pose a danger to any person or the community by a reduction in sentence. (Application Note 1(B) of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.)

5) Other (explain)

The defendant's possession of a firearm and role as "enforcer" poses a greater danger to the community. These factors played a greater role in the Court's decision than the
weight of the drugs.