United States v. Rivas

808 F. Supp. 2d 603, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96253, 2011 WL 4000885
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 23, 2011
Docket04 CR. 0802-02 (VM)
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 808 F. Supp. 2d 603 (United States v. Rivas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Rivas, 808 F. Supp. 2d 603, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96253, 2011 WL 4000885 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER

VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge.

Defendant Marisol Rivas (“Rivas”) filed this pro se motion to reduce her sentence. On June 5, 2006, Rivas pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. This Court imposed the then-applicable mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months of imprisonment pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) (amended Aug. 3, 2010). Rivas now seeks a reduction of her sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (“§ 3582(c)(2)”) based on recent changes to the United States Sentencing Guidelines applicable to crack cocaine offenses.

Rivas is not eligible for relief under § 8582(c)(2) because her sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sen *604 tencing Commission,” id., but rather “based on the statutory mandatory minimum sentence.” United States v. Williams, 551 F.3d 182, 185-86 (2d Cir.2009) (denying relief under § 3582(c)(2) where defendant was subject to mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)). Additionally, Rivas is not entitled to the benefit of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub.L. No. 111-222, 124 Stat. 2372. The FSA took effect on August 3, 2010, more than four years after Rivas was convicted, and it cannot be applied retroactively. United States v. Diaz, 627 F.3d 930, 931 (2d Cir.2010) (per curiam).

ORDER

For the reasons stated above, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion (Docket No. 55) of defendant Marisol Rivas to reduce her sentence is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Tejeda
978 F. Supp. 2d 245 (S.D. New York, 2013)
Martin v. United States
834 F. Supp. 2d 115 (E.D. New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
808 F. Supp. 2d 603, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96253, 2011 WL 4000885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rivas-nysd-2011.