Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Craig Alexander, Petitioner v. United States

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

CG

NLE X AN b

PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs

U5

S

RESPONDENT(S)

-

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

-'

C'c

Cc.

S44

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

•

Cc

•Ie&

(Your Name)

o33

Calcry

()

(Address)

•

•

•

•

(City, State, Zip Code)

•

0

•

•

H)

•

(Phone Number)

•

0

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Whether the Supreme Court should resolve spilt

decisions in the lower court - as to how far a

Judge must explain and/or elaborate on a

decision to grant or deny a Novant's petition

under §3582?

Whether a Defendant should be considered as

having a bad Criminal History score when

Defendant is only at category 3 without any

violence on a Criminal History Chart of I

thru VI?

Can a Judge continue to use old non—violent

disciplinary infraction even after a

Defendant has displayed several years of

clear conduct? At what point does his old

infractions stop haunting him?

LIST OF PARTIES

[arties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONSBELOW ........................................................................................................ 1

JURISDICTION.........................................................................

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED...; ........... ................ A-1

STATEMENTOF THE CASE .............................................................................................

.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT .....................................................................

CONCLUSION.............................. ..........................................................................................14

INDEX TO.APPENDICES.

•

.

APPENDIX

Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision ......i2--13

APPENDIX B:

Sécoñd Circuit Court of Appeals granting similar

situation .................................... 12-13

..

APPENDIX C

•

Case pending with the Supreme Court similar to

•

•

•

•

•

.

.

APPENDIX 0

Defendant's petition.

•.

APPENDIX E

•

•

APPENDIX F

•

.

•

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE(S)

CASES

United States v. Simmons,586 Fed. Appx. 663 (6th Cir 2014)...4

Kimbrough,2007 WL 4292040, at *12 2007 and 2010 amend ........5

Kimbrough v. United States,552 U.S. 85 2007 ..................5

Kimbrough v. United States,552 U.S., 97-99 128 S. Ct. 858, 169 L. Ed. 2d 482(2007) ..........................................6

Duncan v. Walker,537 U.S. 167, 174, 121 S. Ct. 2120, 150 L.

Ed. 2d251(2000) .............................................

United States v. Thomas,775 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2014) .........7

United States v. Alejandro-Montanez,778 F.3d 352 (1st Cir.

2015) .........................................................7

United States v. Ayala,'No-05--CR-008 (2008) WL 555525 at W.D.

VA Feb 26, 2008) ..............................................8

U.S. Dist LEXIS,6771 U.S. v. Holtsclaw, Jan 18, 2017 ........8

United States v. Sawyer,2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166316 .......10

Freeman v. United States,564 'U.S.

13 1 5., Ct. 2685, 2688

180 L. ED. 2d 519 ..........................................11

United States v. Neron Christie,736 F.3d 2013 U.S. App LEXIS

23073 (Second Cir.) ........................................12

United States v. Adaucto Chavez-Meza,854 F.3d 655; 2017.... 13

STATUTES AND RULES

18 U.S.C.3582(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. 994(0)ir ...............

U.S.S.G

§1.B1.10(b)(2)(A) ............... .......... . ........ 1-3

U.S.S.G. App. C Amends 748, 752 (2011) .....................4

21 U.S.. §846, 841(a) and (b) .............................7

18 U.S.C. 3551 et seq .......................................11

18 U.S.C. §3553(a) ........................................12

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

{11' r cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

to

;or,

[ I reported at

{ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

••

to'

; or,

[ ] reported at

{ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[1 is unpublished.

.

• { ] For cases from state courts:.

-

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix

to the -petition. and is

; or,

[ ] reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

-'

The opinion of the

appears at Appendix

.

-

to the petition and is

; Or,

[ ] reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

E. is unpublished.

•

)

.

1.

court

JURISDICTION

cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was

Nb.XCk

I, 1Ot8

petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date:

, and a copy of the.

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

.

.

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including

(date) on

(date)

in Application No. _A______

.-.

.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 Ti. S. C. § 1254(1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date On which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including

(date) on

(date) in

Application No.

A_______

________________

.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

I

)

.

-

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Fifthe Amendment;. to the United States Constitution provides

in relevant part "No person shall be

deprived of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law.

Fourteenth Amendment; to the United States Constitution

provides in relevant part "No state

shall make or enforce any law which

shall abridge the privileges or

immunities o,f citizens of the United

state; nor shall any state deprive

any person of life, liberty, or

property without due process of law,

•

nor deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the "Equal Protection of

the laws".

J

A-i

STATEMENT OF CASE

NOW COMES, Craig Alexander (herein after referred to as

"Defendant"), who's proceeding, via, pro se representation,

and respectfully moves this Honorable Court to direct modification

of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.3582(c)(2) and U.S.C.

§994(o). Based upon -Retroactive

-

Amendment: 782, 750 and 706

to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, applicable to cocaine

•base, ("crack")offenses f"U.S.S.G" §1B1.10(b)(2)(A)J.

The Defendant's base offense level has been lowered to 30,

whereas the Sentencing Court held Defendant Alexander responsible

for more than 2.8 kilograms of cocaine base: which makes him

eligible under Amendment 750 resulting in a base offense level of

34, combined with a three point enhancement for organizer/leader

and a two point enhancement for obstruction of justice, the

defendant's sentencing guideline range is 324 to 405, based on

a total offense level of 39.

On or about 19, 2001, Defendant, Craig Alexander, was named

in a three Count Indictment charging him as follows:

Count 1: Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess

with Intent to Distribute more than

0 grams of a mixture and substance

Containing Cocaine Base (Crack

Cocaine), in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§846, §841(a)(1) and §841(b)(1)(A)

(iii); and

Count 2 & 3: Possession with Intent to Distribute

more than 50 grams of a mixture and

Substance Containing Cocaine Base

(Crack Cocaine) and Aiding and

Abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§841(a)(1) and §841(b)(1)(A)(iii),

and 18 U.S.C. §2

On September 19, 2001, Defendant was found guilty by a jury

on all three counts of the indictment. At presentence report(PSR)

1

was prepared finding Craig Alexander responsible for more than

2.8 kilograms of cocaine base, resulting in a base offense level

of 38. Five additional levels were added to his base offense

level under U.S.S.G §3B1 .1 (a) for his alleged role as a leader

and organizer of a criminal activity that involved five or more

participants or was otherwise extensive, and obstruction of

justice resulting in a total offense level of 43: combined with

criminal history category of III. Alexander's sentencing guideline

range of imprisonment was calculated to be life. On January 11,

2002, Alexander was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment on

each count, to be served concurrently.

Alexander appealed and on January 17, 2002, the Fifth

Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. Alexander filed a

motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255 on December 25, 2004, which was

denied by the District Court on July 30, 2005. The Fifth Circuit

denied Alexander's Certificate of Appealability on the District

Court's denial on his §2255 motion on August 8, 2005.

On February 25, 2008, your Defendant filed a motion for

reduction of sentence under section §3582(c)(2). The government

filed a response in opposition. The District Court then denied

Alexander's motion on April 22, 2008.

On December 7, 2011, the Defendant filed a motion to reduce

his sentence under §3582 pursuant to Amendment 750. The government

filed a motion in opposition to the Defendant's motion for

reduction of his sentence,

in which the government erroneously

calculated your Defendant's applicable guideline range, including

held him accountable for at least 4.1395 kilograms of cocaine

2

base, and then requested that the Court deny the motion because

Amendment 750 does not alter the Defendant's original sentencing

range..

THE DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR A REDUCTION OF

SENTENCE BECAUSE THE AMENDMENTS SUBSEQUENTLY

LOWERED HIS GUIDELINE RANGE.

Section §3582(c)(2) provides:

['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 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 statement issued by the Sentencing Commission.

18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2).

In U.S.SG. §1B1.10, the Sentencing Commission has

indentified the amendments [Amendments: 706, 711, 750 and 7821

that a court may apply retroactively pursuant to this authority,

and articulated the proper procedure for implementing the amendments

in a concluded case. The version of section §131.10 applicable

in this case has became effective November 1, 2011 and 2014, and

added Amendments 750 and 782 to the list of amendments to be

applied retrocatively.Id.

The revised version of this Guideline emphasizes, that a

defendant may take advantage of the relief section §3582(c)(2)

offers if the amendment(s) has the effect of lowering the

defendant's Guideline Range.Id.

3

In 2011 the Sentencing Commission again retroactively lowered

the base offense level for most offenses involving crack cocaine:

At least 8.4 kilograms would yield a 38, while 2.8 to 8.4

kilograms corresponded to a 36. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amends 748,

750 (2011).

However, the Sentencing Commission has now authorized the

Federal Court's to review crack cocaine sentences retroactively

under §3582(c)(2) and the revised sentencing guidelines beginning

in November of 2015. See: United States Sentencing Commission:

Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines (Preliminary) (July 18,

2014) 20140718_RFP_Amendents Retroactively. pdf. This makes

Amendment 782 retroactive. See Also: United States v. Simmons,

586 Fed. 663 (6th Cir. 2014).

Thus, Mr. Alexander, Defendant is eligible for a sentencing

reduction under Amendment 782. Whereas, calculating Defendant's

lowered applicable guideline range, it yields an offense level of

39,with acriminál history category III and Guideline range of

One hundred and eighty-eight to two hundred and thirty-five

months 324 months to 405 imprisonment", under the application of

Amendments 782, 750 and 706.

REASON FOR GRANTING PETITION.

I. THERE EXIST A FUNDAMENTAL BASIS TO MODIFY

THE TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT UNDER THOSE

FACTORS ARTICULATED UNDER 18 U.S.C.

§3553(a).

We need not pause to find whether there is a ["fundamental

basis"] to modify the terms of imprisonment your Defendant suffers

under the sentencing guidelines and statutory frameworking of 21

U.S.C. §841, et seq.. What Congree.has said pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

4

§3553(a) is "The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but

not greater than necessary, to comply with the purpose set forth

in paragraph (2) of this section. Th,e court, in determining the

particular sentences imposed, shaiLconsider, the kinds of

sentences available-, (a)(3) and the kind of sentencing range

established for the applicable category of offenses committed by

the defendants as set forth in the sentencing guidelines, (a)(4).

Mr. Alexander suffer from a Life sentence, which is greater

than necessary, but Amendments 782 and 750, et seq, now entitles

him to relief.

Several factors warrant rediiction of the defendant's sentence

in the instance case as authorized by the relevant statute and

guideline. First among them is the clear applicability of the

amended, retroactive guideline to Alexander's case. The United

States Sentencing Coihmission, supported by a wealth of study,

legal analysis, and consultation with judicial and other sources,

has concluded that the original enhancement of the offense level

was unduly severe, particularly in comparison with the lesser

sentences imposed as to defendant involved with 'much larger

quantities of powder cocaine. Pursuant to the statutory process,

-

the November 1, 2007 and 2011 amendments to §2D1.1 was submitted

to Congress and became effective on those dates. See: Kimbrough,

2007 WL 4292040, at *12 (noting significance of Congress' "tacit

acceptance of the 2007 and 2010 amendments"). [Kimbrough v.

United States,552 U.S. 85-2007))).].

The amended guidelines of 2007, 2011 and 2014 were made

5

retroactive for the purpose of granting relief in cases like the

instant case in which the defendant's offense of conviction was

enhanced on the now-superseded cocaine guidelines. "This court

should also consider the sentence it would have imposed had the

amendment been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced".

Id.

In the instant case, it is not unreasonable to find

-

that

given the Court's position at sentencing, the defendant was

sentenced to Life, but this Honorable Court may now, taken into

account the Amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,[sic]

(Amendments 782 and 750) and extending such position under the

balancing factors articulated pursuant to 133353 and 13994(0), the

Supreme Court should direct the District Court to reduce your

Defendant's sentence between 324-405 months of imprisonment as

now applicable to Alexander's case by common law. See: Kimbrough

v. United States,552 U.S. 85, 97-99 128 S. Ct. 858, 169 L. Ed. 2d

482 (2007).

Defendant gains further support under Duncan v. Walker,533

U.S. 167, 174, 121 S. Ct. 2120, 150 L. Ed. 2d 251 (2000), where

the United States Supreme Court noted that a statute should

be construed so that no word shall be superfluous, void or

insignificant. In applying this reasoning to the instant motion,

Defendant contends that courts has statutory authority to modify

the term of imprisonment under §3582(c)(2), given the authority

vested by mandate of §3553(a) to the extent applicable., where

such reduction is consistent with applicable policy statement

issued by the Sentencing Commission, under Amendments 706, 750,

ri

and 782, and applying such terms nunc pro tunc, there is no doubt

that the Court would have imposed a substantially lower term of

imprisonment had the Amendments been in effect at the time of

sentencing.

Additionally, Defendant's conduct subsequent to his

commission of the offense is consistent with the rehabilitative

goals of the sentencing guidelines.

Sixteen years ago, a jury convicted Defeidant [Mr. Alexander]

-then twenty-seven(27)years old

-

on three counts: cocaine base

(crack) offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846, §841(a) and (b).

In light of Amendment 706 and 750 along with the newly

promulgated Amendment 782 to the U.S.S.G. which become effective

November 1, 2014 and applies retroactive to reduce most drug

quantity base offense levels by two levels, a district court may

accept motions for retroactive application prior to November 1,

2015 provided that: ........any potential sentencing reduction not

take effect until November 2015. United States Sentencing Guidelines

Manual §1B1.10, cmt., application n.6. See United States Y. Thomas,

775 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2014); and United States v. AlegandroNontanez,778 F.3d 352 (1st Cir. 2015).

Thus, Defendant, Mr. Alexander, is eligible for a reduction

as set forth herein.

Defendant [Mr. Alexander] respectfully prays the Supreme

Court remand defendant for resentencing under Amendment 782, [750

"FSA".J, 714, 711 and 706 to his sentence, and sus sponte modify

Defendant's Life sentence. Under the New Sentencing Guidelines to

[the new ratio under the FSA"] to Amendment 750 and 782,

Defendant's total offense level is now 39 and his criminal history

7

category is III, which yields a sentencing guideline range of 324

months to 405 months. Therefore, Defendant humbly ask that this

Honorable Court would remand sentencing to what is just,

accordingly. As it is clear that this Honorable Court has

sentencing discretion to direct relief sought in the instant

§3582(c)(2) Motion.

Petitioner, would like the Court to take notice that the

United States Probation Office and the United States Government

both agreed that Petitioner is eligible for a sentence reduction

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).

Furthermore, the United States Government did not oppose a

reduction in sentence. The District Court has relied on Petitioner's

Post-conviction conduct to deny Petitionerany relief. While the

Court should consider post-conviction conduct violations conduct,

Alexander's post-conviction violations are no more egregious than

other defendants who have received reductions. Petitioner has

already been punished for his post-conviction conduct. Theychave

been handled adininistrately by the institutions in which he was

confined. See, United States v. Ayala,No-05-CR-008 (2008) WL

555525 at W.D. VA.Feb •26, 2008). No bar to sentence reduction

because such conduct may be dealt with administrately through

loss of good time and/or privileges. See also 2017 U.S. Dist LEXIS,

6771 U.S. v. Holtsclaw, Jan 18, 2017.

There is nothing in nature in myparticularcrack cocaine

offense or my post conviction conduct that cause for:a more

severe sentence than the one called for under the new sentencing

guidelines. Petitioner would like too point out that the

infractions that were committed were very minor infractions

LV

especially considering the harsh environment that I have been

placed. Condemned to à.life sentence for a non-violent drug

offense at a very young, age of 27. Alexander had little motivation

to obtain positive conduct. Petitioner is not trying to justify

any negative actions on his part, he would just like to address

to the Court that he is. not,a bad person or a threat to society,

and ask this Honorable Court to render justice in his sentence.

Prior to Alexander's 'present conviction as well as during

his incarceration may it please the Court that Mr. Alexander has

never been charged or convicted of a crime of violence. This alone

substantiates the fact that Mr. Alexander needs rehabilitation not

incarceratiOn..Pursuant to 3553(a) factors.

In Petitioner's Order from the District Court, the District

Court states, "Defendant received a sentence of Life. This

sentence was fair in light of factors in Title 18 U.S.C. Section

3553(a)". There is nothing fair about a life sentence when there

has been a retro-active change in law. The District Court has

continued to use thesame out-dated 100 to 1 ratio that has long

ago been deemed bias and unfair.

Criminal History: The District Court relies on Petitioner's

criminal history, offense conduct or relevant conduct to deny

him relief. Alexander has-only two prior state convictions, D,

Delivery of Controlled Substance (less than a gram) and Theft of

a Person. Both convictions occurred 1992 when defendant was 19

years of age. Alexander was never incarcerated for more than one

year for either offense. Two points resulted from defendant being

placed on probation for those two offenses thus placing Alexander

in a criminal history category of (3).

This alone shows that defendant does not have an extensive

criminal history.

Post Conviction Conduct: In Petitioner's post conviction

conduct, Petitioner would like the Court to take notice of the

98 vocation, educational and recreational programcertificates

that he has successfully completed, (See Exhibit A) which outweighs

the 26 minor infractions that he has in his 16 years of

incarceration.

Relevant Conduct: Although each factor in Section 3553(a)

does not have to be proven, the District Court has relied on

offenseconduct or relevant conduct that does not reflect the

record. There is nothing in the record showing defendant has any

extreme offense conduct or relevant conduct that the District

Court is relying on. Defendant received a 3 level enhancement for

a manager role under 3B1.1(b) in a small four person conspiracy.

The District Court failed to consider as a whole the 3353(a)

factors. The District Court cannot pick from the 3553(a) factors

and disregard other factors from the provision. See, United

States v.Sawyer,2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, 166316).

Defendant contends that the District Court abused its

:.:; r.

discretion by falling to consider all the 3553(a) factors in

making its determination. See, 3553(a)(6). "Any pertinent factors

of policy statement, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence

disparities among defendants with similar records who have

been found guilty of similar conduct". The 3553(a) factors clearly

states: "To provide just punishment for the offense by considering

10

the kind of sentence available and the sentencing range, the need

to avoid unwarranted disparities.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 3351 et seq.,

calls for the creation of Sentencing Guidelines to inform judicialdiscretion in order to reduce unwarranted disparities in federal

sentencing. The Act allows retroactive amendments to the

Guidelines for cases where the guidelines becomes a cause of

inequality, not a bulwark against it. Section 3582(c)(2) permits

defendants sentenced based on a sentencing range that ha's been

modified to move for a reduction sentence. Alexander's crackcocaine range is a prime example of unwarranted disparities that

section 3582(c)(2) is designed to cure.

In every case the Judge must exercise discretion to impose

an appropriate sentence. This discretion in turn, is framed by the

sentencing Giiidelines,.and that guidelines must be consulted in

the regular course. Section 3582(c)(2) empowers District Court

Judges to correct sentences that depend on framework that later

prove unjustified. There is no' reason to deny Section 3582(c)(2)

relief to defendant who lingers in prison pursuant to sentences

that would not have been imposed but for a since rejected,

excessive range. See, Freeman v. United States,564U.S.,,13

1 S. Ct. 268, 2688, 180 L. Ed. 2d 2d 519). Simply stating

certain 3553 factors that are not indifferent to other defendants

with the same criminal history, offense conduct or post-conviction

conduct and enforce a a harsher sentence than required is clearly

an improper application of the law and use of erroneous legal

standards.

The sentencing Commission has clarified the type of drug

11

quantity that required to trigger a term of life imprisonment.

Therefore, the District Court abuse of discretion and

interpretation of the guideline is based upon an error of law

and clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence it relies on

concerning Movant's Criminal History, Offense Conduct and Post

Sentencing Conduct. None of these factors are of such aggravating

nature to warrant an upward departure from the guidelines to

continue to enforce a life term sentence. Petitioner asserts

that he is not a risk or danger to the community.

Defendant would specifically like this Court to take notice

that, the United States Attorney Office has agreed with Defendant's

request for a sentence reduction and recommends that the

Defendant be resentenced to the top end of his new guideline

range which is 405 months. (See enclosed Exhibit B). In closing

Defendant requests to be resentenced to 324 months, the low end

of his new guideline range.

II

As stated previously the District relies on Defendant's

Criminal History Category' as well as post conviction conduct

and relevant conduct. Petitioner ask that this Court review cases

similar to Movant's record and conduct and order the District

Court to apply the 3553(a) factors to avoid unwarranted sentence

disparities. See United States v. Neron Christie,736 F.3d 2013

U.S. App LEXIS 23073 second circuit). In U.S. v.Christie,

Chris tie's Criminal History Category is a Category (5)five much

greater than Defendant's Category (3)three. Unlike Christie,

defendant's criminal history does not involve firearms nor does

12

defendant have any violence pre or post-conviction. Christie was

awarded with a redction dispite a greater Criminal History and

a firearm offen se .

III

In the Government's response, although agreeing that

Petitioner (alexander) is eligible for a reduction and did not

oppose a reduction in sentence. Government miscalculated the time

frame for Defendant's latest incident report. Government states

that Defendant's last infraction was committed December 2016,

which is incorrect, (See pages 3 of Exhibit B). This major

miscalculation carry a great weight when the District Court

rendered its decision for Petitioner's motion. Petitioner's last

incident report was on November 4, 2013.(See Exhibit C). This is

extrerneiysignificant because Defendant has displayed good conduct

incident free, for nearly five years in his last 171years of

incarceration.

IVPetitioner's claim is that the District Court abused its

discrectiôn by simply stating it considered the relevant 18 U.S.C.

3353(a) factors, offense conduct, criminal history and postsentencing conduct without elaborating. In addition the District

Court also issued a standard AO-247 form stating the same without

elaborations.

Circuits are split on degree of explanation necessary to

satisfy 3582. Several circuits have found that elaborations are

required when deciding a motion under 3582. See United States v.

Adaucto Chavez-Meza,854 F.3d 655; 2017) also See United States v.

Christie,736 F.3d 191, 195 (2nd Cir. 2013). A problem arises from

13

the fact that its impossible to ensure the District Court did

not abuse its discretion if the order shows only that the District

Court exercised its discretion rather than showing how it

exercised its discretion without further elaborations.

In closing Defendant ask that this Court hold his petition

in abeyance until a decision is render on United States v. AdauctChavez-Neza,854 F.3d pending with the United States Supreme

Court.

Respectfully Submitted,

Date:

2'

4k

,2018

_________________

Craig Al e xander

O?5O35

Reg. No.

F.C.C.-Coleman USP-i

P.O. Box 1033

Coleman, Fl. 33521

14