Free Motion to Reduce Sentence re Crack Cocaine Offense - 18:3582 - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

‘ P 1 f3
Case3ZOO-CF-00N€3.‘?[*l%'§|'|STA|TESUVDPSERTCTIi1l?l§lRC13/11/2008 ag? °
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

) £l"" ' g ) M:
RODNEY CANADA )
PET1T1oNBR, )
)
V E CASE NO: CR00169(JCH)
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g
RESPONDANT. )
MOTION REQUESTING THE MODIFICATION
OF TEM OF IMPRISONMENT PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 3582§cQ§2) and SECT.3553[aQ
NOW COMES RODNEY CANADA acting pro-se(hereafter reffered
to as "Petitioner"), seeking relief from this Honarable District Court,
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sect. 3582§cQ(2) and 3553(a} to modify term of
imprisonment. Additionally petitioner moves this Court to accept this
motion pursuant to Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 30 L. Ed 2d 652, 92
S. Ct. 592 (1972). Holding that pro-se litigants are held to less
stringent standards than lawyers.
JURISDICTION
This Hoarable Court has juridiction under this statute
18 U.S.C. sect. 3582(c)(2) which reads: In case of a defendant who has
been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on the sentencing range
that has subsequently been lowered by 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 it's own motion, the Court may reduce the
term of imprisonment after considering the factors set fourth in sect.
3553(a) to the extent that they are applicaple, if such a reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the sentencing
commission.

Case 3:00—cr—00169-JCH Document 14 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 2 of 3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The petitioner was found guilty on May 30, 2000 for violation
of Title 21 U.S. code, section 841(a)(1) and was held until sentenced
to 140 months by the Federal District Court. Since the petitioner's
sentence, the guidelines have been amended to where the petitioner
would have a lower category and base offense level.
ARcUEMENT_
g In United States v. Coleman, W.D. M.D. 1997, 958 F. supp. 452,
it was held that, "life sentence in drug case, that was mandated by
earlier sentence guideline, was subjected to modification." Also see:
UnitedStates v Armstrong, C.A. 11(ALA)2003, 347 F.3d 905, where it was
held that; "for a sentence to be reduced retroactively under statutory
subsection provideing for modification of an imposed term of imprisonment
a Court must determine whether, there has been an Amendment to the
sentencing guidelines that lowered the guidelines applicaple to that
sentence, and listed under guideline policy statement regarding reduction
in the term of imprisonment as a result of amended guideline range.
In this matter, the language of the sentencing commission's
amendment was made clear in the new provision that reduces base offense
levels for "cocaine base" by two levels, a violation of 21 U.S.C. 846.
Under UNITED STATES V BOOKER, this district Court has the discretion to
resentence defendant under the new sentencing commission's guideline
which stipulates that the crack laws have been changed and made retro-
active subsequent to November 1, 2007.

· f3
Case 3:00—cr—00169-JCH Document 14 Fnled 03/11/2008 Page 3 0
THEREFORE, the District Court should use it's authority to
resentence petitioner based on thAmendment showing the guidelines of
"cocaine base" being lowered. It would be fair, based on the foregoing
in the interest of prevailing change in "crack laws", to reduce the
petitioner's term of imprisonment, considering the factors set fourth in
section 3553(a).
Petitioner delares under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct.

R dney anada 13 4 - 14
USP Ca aan
Waymart, Pa. 18472
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have caused atrue copy of the foregoing to be
seved upon the OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT,
915 Lafayette Boulevard Bridgeport Ct. 06604, by mailing prepaid
on this 3rd day of March, 2008.
;Rodney§Canada