United States of America v. Gibson
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 2/21/2017. Mailed notice. (mgh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
No. 16 C 7842
Memorandum Opion and Order
Harrington Gibson, who on July 2, 2013, pleaded guilty to a
charge of distributing 280 grams or more of cocaine base in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), has moved under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He argues
that Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which amended
sentence reduction. I deny the motion for the following reasons.
Gibson was sentenced on December 23, 2013, almost two years
before Amendment 794 was issued on November 1, 2015. While it is
true that in U.S. v. Quintero-Leyva, the Ninth Circuit held that
collateral review. See, e.g., United States v. Ozuna, No. 16 C
9822, 2017 WL 622423 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2017) (Darrah, J.);
Lindsey v. United States, No. 16 C 878, 2017 WL 283384 (S.D.
Ill. Jan. 23, 2017) (Gilbert, J.); Donahue v. United States, No.
16 C 1319, 2016 WL 6833919 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2016) (Shadid,
CJ.); Johnson v. United States, No. 16 C 528, 2016 WL 6084018
(S.D. Ohio, Oct. 17, 2016) (collecting cases). As the government
points out, and as many of the foregoing cases noted, Amendment
794 is not listed among the retroactive amendments in U.S.S.G.
The government also responds that even if Amendment 794
government goes on to argue that a motion under § 3582 would
fail because defendant was originally sentenced to 56 months’
imprisonment, which is below the 57-71 month adjusted range that
would apply if he received the maximum possible adjustment under
denied, and I decline to issue a certificate of appealability.
Elaine E. Bucklo
United States District Judge
Dated: February 21, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?