Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion for reduction of his sentence under section 3582(c) on crack cocaine charges where his 192-month term of incarceration was specified in defendant’s plea agreement that was accepted by Dist. Ct. While defendant’s motion was based on retroactive revised guidelines for sentences involving crack cocaine, defendant’s plea agreement made him ineligible for instant sentence reduction since his sentence was not based on any guideline range, but rather on terms of plea agreement.

Ct. of Appeals granted motion by defendant’s counsel seeking leave to withdraw after having filed Anders brief in appeal from defendant’s conviction on charge of being in U.S. illegally after having been deported, alleging that Dist. Ct. improperly directed defendant to refrain from unlawful use of controlled substances, as well as to submit to random drug tests should defendant not be deported after completing sentence. While Dist. Ct,. could have imposed such terms had it formally ordered that defendant be subjected to supervised release, Dist. Ct. expressly declined to order supervised release. Accordingly, such terms were stricken from instant judgment.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 168-month term of incarceration on bank robbery charges even though Dist. Ct. made reference to portions of probation officer’s confidential sentencing recommendation when imposing said sentence. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that probation officer’s confidential sentencing recommendation violated defendant’s 5th and 6th Amendment rights where record showed that defendant had received and had opportunity to comment on all facts supporting said recommendation, and that defendant’s counsel had presented comprehensive arguments based on said facts.