United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court on:
Dkt. 112 Motion to Reduce Sentence
Dkt. 116 Response
Dkt. 118 Motion to Reduce Sentence under Sec. 3582(c)(2) and
Daniel Orlando Abrahams, gro se, seeks reduction of
Defendant's sentence pursuant to the August 3, 2010 Fair
Abrahams entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the
Indictment, charging Defendant with conspiracy with intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, while aboard a
vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in
violation of Sees. 70506(a) and (b); and 21 U.S.C. Sec.
960(b)(1)(B)(ii). Defendant Abrahams was sentenced on May 27,
2016 to 168 months imprisonment, 60 months supervised
release, fine waived, and a special assessment fee of
sentencing, the Court determined that Defendant's total
offense level was 35, Criminal History Category was 1, the
guideline range (after application of Sec. 5G1.1 and Sec.
5G1.2), was 168 to 210 months imprisonment, the supervised
release range was 5 years, and the fine range was $20, 000 to
$10, 000, 000.
September 29, 2016, Defendant Abrahams filed a Sec. 2255
Motion (Diet. 97), which the Court denied. (Dkt. 103).
Abrahams filed an Amendment 782 Motion on April 10, 2017.
(Dkt. 105). Counsel was appointed for Defendant. The U.S.
Probation Office filed an Amendment 782 Memorandum which
indicated that Defendant Abrahams is ineligible, because the
Drug Quantity Table remains at level 38 (540 kilograms of
cocaine) and Defendant was sentenced under the 2015
Guidelines, which incorporate all the benefits of Amendment
Federal Defender's Office filed its Notice that all
requirements imposed by the Omnibus Amendment 782 Order were
satisfied. (Dkt. 110). Thereafter, Defendant Abrahams filed
his pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence. (Dkt. 112). After
independent review, the Court denied Defendant's
Amendment 782 Motion. (Dkt. 114).
Standard of Review
se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be
liberally construed." Tannenbaum v. United
States. 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per
courts have "an obligation to look behind the label of a
motion filed by a pro se inmate and determine whether the
motion is, in effect, cognizable under a different remedial
statutory framework," United ...