Ailemen v. United States Of America

Filing 81

ORDER Denying Motion for Sentence Reduction; Denying Motion for Relief for Post Rehabilitation. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 5/13/15. (jgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2015)

1
2
*E-FILED - 5/14/15*

3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

NOS. C-04-00823-RMW
(Related Case: CR-94-00003-CRB)

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING SENTENCE REDUCTION

13

v.

14

PIUS AILEMEN,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Defendant Pius Ailemen moved to reduce his sentence based upon the modification of the

18

Sentencing Guidelines. The court requested that the Probation Department, United States

19

Attorney’s Offense and the Public Defender’s Office meet and confer regarding the motion. The

20

Probation Department and the United States Attorney’s met and conferred and the Probation Office

21

submitted a Sentence Reduction Investigation Report. That report concludes that Ailemen is not

22

entitled to a sentence reduction because under the Guidelines, as amended, there is no reduction in

23

the Ailemen’s base level offense. Although it does not appear that the Public Defender’s Office met

24

and conferred with the Probation Office and United States Attorney’s Office as was initially ordered

25

by the court, such consultation is not required. A defendant does not have a right to counsel for the

26

purposes of filing a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510,

27

512-13 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2000)), nor does a

28

defendant have a right to a hearing. United States v. Jules, 595 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2010).
Order Denying Sentence Reduction
No. C-04-0823-RMW and CR-94-00003-RMW

1

Therefore, the court hereby vacates its original order insofar as it required the Federal Public

2

Defender’s Office to participate in a meet and confer.

3

Section 3582(c)(2) provides that [t]he court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it

4

has been imposed except that . . . in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of

5

imprisonment based upon a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing

6

Commission . . . .” Ailemen’s sentencing range has not been lowered because his base level offense

7

under 18 U.S.C. § 848 (Continuing Criminal Enterprise) remains at level 38. See United States v.

8

Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2009).

9

By letter dated February 15, 2015 and in his response to the Probation Office’s Report,

10

Ailemen asks that the court grant him relief based upon his Post Conviction Rehabilitation effort

11

over his approximately nineteen years of incarceration. Although the court is sympathetic to his

12

request, the court is not empowered to grant the relief requested.

13

For the reasons stated, Ailemen’s Motion to Reduce His Sentence Based Upon Guideline

14

Amendment is denied. His Motion for Relief for Post Rehabilitation is also denied.

15

DATED: May 13, 2015

16
17

_______________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Denying Sentence Reduction
No. C-04-0823-RMW and CR-94-00003-RMW

1
2

Copy of Order Mailed on 5/14/15 to:

3

5

Pius Ailemen
Reg. #84447-011-B
Northeast Ohio Correctional Center
2240 Hubbard Road
Youngstown, OH 44505

6

Pro Se Defendant

4

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Denying Sentence Reduction
No. C-04-0823-RMW and CR-94-00003-RMW

3