Court filing
Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) — United States v. Carlos Smith
No. 1:20-cr-00922 · Doc. 72 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 72 Filed: 06/14/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:479
AO 247 (Rev. 11/11) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Page 1 of 2 (Page 2 Not for Public Disclosure)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Northern District
__________ District of
ofIllinois
__________
United States of America
v. )
Carlos Smith )
) Case No: 20 CR 922
) USM No: 47891-424
Date of Original Judgment: 02/24/2023 )
Date of Previous Amended Judgment: ) Erin K. DeGrand
(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)
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 in 18 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)
Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Order Date: 06/14/2024
Judge’s signature
Effective Date: The Honorable Manish S. Shah, U.S. District Judge
(if different from order date) Printed name and title
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 72 Filed: 06/14/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:480
AO 247 (Rev. 11/11) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Page 2 of 2 (Page 2 Not for Public Disclosure)
This page contains information that should not be filed in court unless under seal.
(Not for Public Disclosure)
Carlos Smith
DEFENDANT:
CASE NUMBER: 20 CR 922
DISTRICT: Northern District of Illinois
I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)
Previous Total Offense Level: 17 Amended Total Offense Level: 17
Criminal History Category: III Criminal History Category: II
Previous Guideline Range: 30 to 37 months Amended Guideline Range: 27 to 33 months
II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO THE AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE
’ The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.
’ The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the
time of sentencing as a result of a substantial assistance departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence
is comparably less than the amended guideline range.
’ The reduced sentence is above the amended guideline range.
III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Although the amended guideline range is lower than the original range, the above-guidelines sentence of 48 months
remains the sufficient but not greater than necessary sentence after consideration of the Section 3553(a) factors.
Neither the original nor amended range adequately accounts for the seriousness of the offense (e.g., the government
program victim) or defendant's history and characteristics (a prior, slightly below guidelines, federal sentence of 60
months that did not deter defendant). Although a properly calculated guidelines range is a starting point, and
variances need to be justified, the guidelines range is not a mathematical anchor. The original sentence was not
arrived at by measuring its distance from the guidelines range. It was a holistic determination, and the sentence is not
harsher today because the guidelines are lower. The sentence remains what it was: 48 months as a sufficient, but not
greater than necessary, measure of just punishment. Defendant's post-sentencing conduct is commendable but does
not persuade the court that a sentence below 48 months would be sufficient. Finally, that the sentence is at a greater
variance from the amended guidelines range than the original range does not create an unwarranted disparity.
Guideline sentences avoid disparities, but there are times when the seriousness of the offense is a weightier
consideration when fashioning just punishment and rote adherence to avoiding disparity through guideline sentencing
would deprecate the seriousness of the offense. This is such a case. Any disparity from other defendants with similar
records who commit similar crimes is entirely warranted here.
Print Save As... Add Attachment Reset
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.ilnd.394355.72.0.pdf
- Size
- 381,814 bytes
- SHA-256
- 7a591d5359ed1f76391e715b560ad3ff8746d01b283a9c493cf5769040575c76
- Original
- PACER (login required)