ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (Docs. 27, 28, 29)

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Carlos Medina ("Mr. Medina"), proceeding pro se, seeks reconsideration of the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 2. Mr. Medina requests reconsideration of his sentence, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Mr. Medina also requests a downward departure. Having considered Mr. Medina's arguments, this Court DENIES Mr. Medina's motions for reconsideration and motion for downward departure.

BACKGROUND

On March 15, 2007, Mr. Medina was indicted for the following offenses:

On September 17, 2007, Mr. Medina entered into a Rule 11(c)(1)(B) plea agreement with the government. Mr. Medina agreed to plead guilty to Count Two of the indictment. The government agreed to recommend a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and a substantial assistance departure. Mr. Medina pled guilty to Count Two of the indictment and on December 3, 2007, he was sentenced to 131-months imprisonment. On April 23, 2012, Mr. Medina filed two motions for reconsideration and a motion for downward departure.

Having considered Mr. Medina's arguments and the relevant law, this Court issues this order.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Medina requests the Court to reconsider his sentence in light of a memo issued by the Department of Justice ("DOJ") on January 31, 2012, regarding the DOJ's policy on early disposition or "Fast-Track" Programs. Mr. Medina requests reconsideration, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He also requests a downward departure based on substandard pretrial/presentence confinement because he was not housed at a federal facility.

A. Fed. R. Crim. P. 36

Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 gives the district court the ability to correct clerical errors. "[I]t may not be used to correct judicial errors in sentencing." United States v. Penna, 319 F.3d 509, 513 (9th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Kaye, 739 F.2d 488, 490 (9th Cir. 1984) ("the provisions of Rule 36 do not permit a substantive change in the period of incarceration which the defendant must serve").

Accordingly, Mr. Medina's motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 is DENIED.

B. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

"A federal court generally may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed." Dillon v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2687 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Mr. Medina requests the Court to reconsider his sentence in light of a memo issued by the DOJ. Mr. Medina does not argue that his sentence was "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, Mr. Medina has failed to satisfy the first prong of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Thus, Mr. Medina's motion for reconsideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is DENIED.

C. Downward Departure

Mr. Medina requests a downward departure based on substandard pretrial/presentence confinement because he was not housed at a federal facility. As discussed above, "[a] federal court generally may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed." Dillon, 130 S. Ct. at 2687 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, Mr. Medina's motion for downward departure is DENIED.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, Mr. Medina's motions for reconsideration and motion for downward departure are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.