Case 1:22-cr-00522-GHW Document 202 Filed 08/24/23 Page 1 of 2
`
`UNITED STATES,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`------------------------------------------------------------- X
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`Defendant.
`X
`-------------------------------------------------------------
`GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:
`
`-v-
`
`JUNIOR GRIFFIN,
`
`USDC SDNY
`DOCUMENT
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`
`DOC #:
`
`
`8/24/2023
`
`DATE FILED:
`
`
`1:16-cr-656-GHW
`
`ORDER
`
`On August 23, 2023, the Court docketed a motion filed by Junior Griffin, acting pro se. Dkt.
`
`No. 1008 (the “Motion”). The Motion requests that the Court amend Mr. Griffin’s sentence as a
`
`result of the application of Section 4C1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.1
`
`Mr. Griffin’s Motion lacks merit for multiple reasons and, therefore, must be denied. First,
`
`Section 4C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines has been adopted by the United States Sentencing
`
`Commission, but it is not yet in effect. It is expected to come into effect on November 1, 2023.
`
`For that reason, Mr. Griffin’s Motion is not timely. Second, while the United States Sentencing
`
`Commission voted today, August 24, 2023, that the amendment to the guidelines would be effective
`
`retroactively, reduced sentences cannot be ordered until February 1, 2024 or later. See
`
`https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendly-
`
`amendments/202308_prelim-retro.pdf (Last visited August 24, 2023). Therefore, Mr. Griffin’s
`
`motion is not timely and the Court cannot grant the requested relief.
`
`Third, as dicta, the Court notes that it appears that Section 4C1.1 would not permit the
`
`modification of Mr. Griffin’s sentence in any event. The effect of the new Section 4C1.1 is to
`
`1 The Court does not construe the Motion as a second motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). It
`provides no basis for the Court to find extraordinary or compelling reasons for his release and provides no justification
`for the Court to reassess its prior evaluation of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Dkt. No. 881.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00522-GHW Document 202 Filed 08/24/23 Page 2 of 2
`
`reduce the offense level calculation for qualifying defendants by two levels. Mr. Griffin was
`
`convicted of an offense with a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years of imprisonment. The
`
`Court sentenced him to the mandatory minimum sentence required by law. See Dkt. No. 613.
`
`Because Mr. Griffin was convicted at trial of a crime requiring the imposition of a 10 year sentence,
`
`and the Court sentenced him to that amount of time in prison, a reduction in his offense level would
`
`not appear to have any impact on his sentence.
`
`In sum, having considered all of the information presented to the Court in connection with
`
`this application, the Court does not believe that a reduction in Mr. Griffin’s sentence is warranted at
`
`this time. His Motion is DENIED.
`
`The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would
`
`not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See
`
`Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
`
`The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 1008, and to
`
`mail a copy of this order to Mr. Griffin by first class mail.
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: August 24, 2023
`New York, New York
`
`_______________________ _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________ __
`__________________________________
`GREGGGGGGGGGGGGGOROROROROROROROROROROOO Y Y YYYYYYYYYYY H. WOODS
`GREGORY H. WOODS
`United States District Judge
`United States District Judg
`
`2
`
`