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


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


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)


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.