IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
In Re: Petitions for Retroactive
Application of United States
Sentencing Guidelines for
Certain Crack Cocaine
Convictions No. 148
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
HERNDON, CHIEF JUDGE:
This Order supersedes Administrative Order 137, which is hereby vacated.
As a result of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, this Court continues to
receive motions asking it to examine, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), past
sentences for the possibility of reductions. Often these requests include motions
requesting that the Court appoint counsel to help the defendant navigate through
the process.
The Seventh Circuit has now spoken to this issue and held in the case of
United States v. Foster, ____F.3d___, 2013 WL 466201, *1 (7th Cir. (Ill.) Feb. 8,
2013), that a district court is not authorized by law to appoint counsel for a
defendant in such an instance. As a consequence, of course, this Court will not
appoint CJA Panel attorneys nor other outside attorneys to represent defendants
in cases where the defendant is seeking a reduction in a sentence for conviction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2). An exemption to this policy, of course, will be
if an attorney volunteers to represent such a defendant pro bono.
However, as a service to the effected defendants, the Federal Public
Defenders office is willing to enter its appearance on behalf of defendants who file
such motions. The Clerk’s office is directed to notify that office of any such
filings. This appearance is voluntary on the part of that office initially but once
the office appears the attorney client relationship naturally attaches. Should the
public defenders office feel compelled to withdraw either because of a conflict or
because it determines the petition is frivolous, the rule in Foster will effectively
prevent the Court from appointing counsel for the defendant who has not
convinced a lawyer to represent him pro bono.
Page 1 of 2
With or without counsel, the Court, in consultation with the Probation
office, will carefully review each motion to reduce sentence to determine if a
reduction is in order under the law.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Entered this 13th day of February, 2013.
Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.02.13
13:16:19 -06'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Page 2 of 2
