United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF REDUCTION OF SENTENCE IN PURSUANT TO TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(2) (ECF NO. 599)
Helen Gillmor United States District Judge
Defendant Polotani Latu, proceeding pro se, has filed a Motion seeking a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant is not eligible to receive a sentence reduction.
Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (ECF No. 599) is DENIED.
On May 1, 2002, the grand jury returned a thirty-seven count Indictment against Defendant Polotani Latu along with several co-defendants. (Indictment, ECF No. 139).
On January 29, 2003, the Government filed a Superseding Information as to Defendant Polotani Latu, charging him in Count 1 with engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(a), and Count 2 for a forfeiture charge pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853. (Superseding Information, ECF No. 263).
On January 30, 2003, Defendant pled guilty to the two counts in the Superseding Information pursuant to a Plea Agreement. (ECF No. 269).
On October 15, 2003, Defendant filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea Agreement and Guilty Pleas. (ECF No. 437).
On November 14, 2003, the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea Agreement and Guilty Pleas. (ECF No. 455).
On November 26, 2003, the Court issued a Minute Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea Agreement and Guilty Pleas. (ECF No. 461).
On December 15, 2003, the sentencing hearing was held. (ECF No. 470). Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 262 months as to Count 1 in the Superseding Information. (Judgment, ECF No. 477).
On December 22, 2003, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal. (ECF No. 474).
On June 9, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order affirming the judgment of the District Court, but it stayed the mandate to allow the parties to file briefs as to whether remand would be appropriate pursuant to the decision in United States v. Ameline as to the discretionary nature of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. (ECF No. 545).
On July 12, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded proceedings to the District Court to determine “whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the ...