Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Mack

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

June 16, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
GERALD S. MACK, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. DUFFEY JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Gerald S. Mack's (“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Sentence Reduction [32] and Motion to Set Payment [33].

         I. BACKGROUND

         On August 21, 2014, Defendant was sentenced to ninety (90) months imprisonment with three (3) years of supervised release, after pleading guilty to one count of Theft of Government Funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2, and one count of Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) and 2. ([9], Judgment [12]). The Court ordered that Defendant “shall make restitution in the amount of $315, 315.72, jointly and severally with any defendant later determined to be related to the scheme, to the victim, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.” (Judgment at 5). The Court included in the Judgment that

Restitution is due and payable immediately. The defendant shall make restitution payments from any wages he may earn in prison in accordance with the Bureau of Prisons Financial Responsibility Program. If restitution is not paid in full at the time of the defendant's release, payment shall become a condition of supervised release to be paid at a monthly rate of at least $150.00, plus 25% of gross income in excess of $2, 300.00 per month.

         (Judgment at 5 (emphasis added)). Defendant did appeal his sentence or conviction.

         On December 23, 2015, the Court, pursuant to a motion under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, reduced Defendant's custodial sentence to seventy-eight (78) months.

         On May 16, 2017, [1] Defendant filed his Motion for Sentence Reduction. In it, Defendant requests that the Court reduce his sentence because he has been diagnosed with leukemia and is currently undergoing intensive treatment. Defendant further requests a reduction pursuant to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York's decision in United States v. Holloway, 68 F.Supp.3d 310 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).

         On May 31, 2017, Defendant filed his Motion to Set Payment. In it, Defendant requests a reduction in his “quarterly” payment toward restitution, under the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Financial Responsibility Program. Defendant states that his counselor increased his quarterly payment from $25.00 to $168.00 per quarter. Defendant requests that his payment be returned to the $25.00 per quarter amount he previously was required to pay.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Reduction of Sentence

         The Court is permitted to modify a term of imprisonment, after it has been imposed, only where expressly permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (“Section 3582”). United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1194-95 (11th Cir. 2010). The Court lacks “inherent power” to re-sentence a defendant. Id. at 1196-97.

         Section 3582 authorizes the modification of a sentence

(1) where the Bureau of Prisons has filed a motion and either extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction or the defendant is at least 70 years old and meets certain other requirements; (2) where another statute or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35[2] expressly permits a sentence modification; or (3) where a defendant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.