Filed: Mar. 31, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2016
Summary: ORDER DUDLEY H. BOWEN , District Judge . On October 19, 2015, this Court denied two motions filed by Defendant Jonathan Luther Jones which sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based upon Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Jones filed a timely notice of appeal from the Order of October 19, 2015. On December 21, 2015, Jones filed a "Motion for Transfer of Transcript of P.S.I. Record" for the benefit of his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of App
Summary: ORDER DUDLEY H. BOWEN , District Judge . On October 19, 2015, this Court denied two motions filed by Defendant Jonathan Luther Jones which sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based upon Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Jones filed a timely notice of appeal from the Order of October 19, 2015. On December 21, 2015, Jones filed a "Motion for Transfer of Transcript of P.S.I. Record" for the benefit of his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appe..
More
ORDER
DUDLEY H. BOWEN, District Judge.
On October 19, 2015, this Court denied two motions filed by Defendant Jonathan Luther Jones which sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based upon Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Jones filed a timely notice of appeal from the Order of October 19, 2015.
On December 21, 2015, Jones filed a "Motion for Transfer of Transcript of P.S.I. Record" for the benefit of his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Jones's motion (doc. no. 215) is DENIED AS MOOT. Even though the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSI") is generally not docketed in a criminal case, it is a court record fully accessible to the appellate court upon request. Accordingly, should the Eleventh Circuit require Jones's PSI to adjudicate his appeal, the Clerk of Court will provide a copy upon request.
Further, this Court notes that Jones's appeal is manifestly without merit. This Court denied his original § 3582(c)(2) motion on May 27, 2015, and his motion for reconsideration on July 9, 2015, because the § 3582(c)(2) relief he seeks is simply not authorized by law. Jones failed to timely appeal the original decision. In filing the latest motions under different names,1 Jones is simply trying to bootstrap an untimely appeal of his § 3582(c)(2) request to the Court's Order of October 19, 2015. In short, the Court finds that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) ("An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith."). For this reason, Jones would not be entitled to any record or transcript without payment thereof.