Taylor v. United States of America

Filing 48

ORDER denying 39 Motion for 3582. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 12/3/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

CEDRIC TAYLOR
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:10-0909
JUDGE CAMPBELL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Petitioner’s Motion For 3582 (Docket No. 39), to which
the Government has filed a Response (Docket No. 42). Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision
in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2577, 177 L. Ed. 2d 68 (2010),
Petitioner contends that he is actually innocent of his felon in possession of a firearm conviction
because he did not have qualifying prior convictions.
In the underlying criminal case, the Petitioner was charged with being a convicted felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924. (Docket No. 1 in Case
No. 3:09-00119). The Petitioner pled guilty to the charge without a plea agreement. (Docket
Nos. 23, 24 in Case No. 3:09-00119). At the subsequent sentencing hearing, on February 5,
2010, the Court sentenced the Petitioner to 77 months of imprisonment. (Docket Nos. 45, 47, 48
in Case No. 3:09-00119). The record indicates that the Petitioner did not appeal.
The Petitioner subsequently filed the instant case seeking to vacate his conviction and
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket No. 1). The Court denied the motion and dismissed
the case on January 26, 2011. (Docket Nos. 17, 18). The Petitioner’s appeal to the Sixth Circuit
was denied on October 19, 2011, and his petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court was
denied on October 2, 2012. (Docket Nos. 35, 38).

Section 3582(c) provides that the Court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it
has been imposed, except:
(1) in any case-(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a
term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions
that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of
imprisonment), after considering the factors set forth in section
3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that-(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant
such a reduction; or
(ii) the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has
served at least 30 years in prison, pursuant to a
sentence imposed under section 3559(c), for the
offense or offenses for which the defendant is
currently imprisoned, and a determination has been
made by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons that
the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any
other person or the community, as provided under
section 3142(g);
and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; and
(B) the court may modify an imposed term of imprisonment to the
extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
(2) in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment
based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the
defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court
may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in
section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.

The Petitioner has not identified the provision of Section 3582 upon which he relies in
2

seeking a modification of his sentence, and none of the exceptions set forth in Section 3582
applies to the circumstances presented here. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not cited any
authority indicating that the Supreme Court’s decision in Carachuri-Rosendo has been made
retroactive to apply to cases on collateral review. See, e.g., Shaeffer v. United States, 2012 WL
1598061 (6th Cir. May 7, 2012).
For these reasons, the Petitioner’s Motion For 3582 (Docket No. 39) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
______________________________
TODD J. CAMPBELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3