The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garnett Thomas Eisele United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING § 2255 PETITION AND OTHER RELIEF
Petitioner John Arron Rowland has filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Correct Illegally Imposed Sentence. Also pending is Mr. Rowland's Motion for Reconsideration. Mr. Rowland pursues both motions pro se. The Court concludes that both motions must be denied.
On September 4, 2003, Mr. Rowland appeared, with counsel, and entered a guilty plea to Count 1 of the Indictment, which charged Mr. Rowland with conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The remaining charges against Mr. Rowland, contained in Counts 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Indictment, were dismissed. The Government and Mr. Rowland entered into a written plea agreement which was filed with the Court. Therein, the parties stipulated to a drug quantity of 32.2744 grams of cocaine base. The agreed upon drug quantity triggered a statutory minimum sentence of five years, or sixty months, imprisonment.
On December 9, 2003, Mr. Rowland appeared, with counsel, for sentencing. Mr. Rowland's extensive criminal history qualified him as a career offender, requiring an increased base offense level under the Guideline and automatically placing him in Criminal History Category VI. A guideline range of 188-235 months resulted. Neither party objected to the computation of the guideline range. The Court imposed the minimum sentence permissible under the Guidelines, 188 months.
On February 9, 2004, the Government filed a Motion for Downward Departure, therein requesting the Court to reduce Mr. Rowland's sentence by 50% to 94 months imprisonment based on his substantial assistance. By Order dated February 17, 2004, the Court found that a further reduction of 50% was not warranted, but instead found that a reduction by 33 1/3 % or, rounded off, 63 months, was appropriate. Accordingly, Mr. Rowland's sentence was reduced from 188 months to 125 months.
It does not appear that Petitioner appealed either his conviction or sentence.
II. PETITIONER'S SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS
(1) Motion for Reconsideration
On May 24, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion captioned "Motion to Respond" which was treated by the Court as a Motion for Reconsideration. Therein, Petitioner seeks to correct or modify an illegally imposed sentence. Petitioner cites a variety of rules, including Rule 60(b)(6),*fn1 § 3535(b)*fn2 and Fed. R. Crim. P. Rules 32(b) and 35, as well as the unconstitutionality of the guideline system following the United States Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Booker*fn3 and United States v. Blakely.*fn4 His request for reconsideration is based on the following allegations:
(1) the Government tricked him into signing a plea agreement believing that he would receive an ultimate sentence of 36 months, but then "hung him out to dry" by failing to file a Rule 35(b) motion requesting a reduction of sentence to 36 months; (2) the Sentencing Guidelines were applied unconstitutionally, causing the Defendant's sentence to be enhanced from 36 to 188 months.
For relief, Petitioner asserts that his 125 month sentence should be reduced to 33-63 months.
(2) Petitioner's Motion Pursuant to § 2255 to Correct Illegally Imposed Sentence
In his § 2255 motion, Petitioner asserts that the Court erred in: (1) failing to enter an Amended Judgment reflecting the sentence reduction from 188 to 125 months of imprisonment; and (2) illegally sentencing him to a term of imprisonment in excess of the 63 months he agreed to in entering into his plea.
Petitioner also references Booker and Blakely, supra, although his petition does not indicate with any specificity how or why he believes his sentence violated Booker.