U.S. v. Rutkowski, 3:12-cr-30013-JPG. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20190516a36
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 15, 2019
Latest Update: May 15, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . The judge previously assigned to this case sentenced defendant Paul Rutkowski to 135 months imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release, after Rutkowski pled guilty to numerous offenses. (ECF No. 53.) Rutkowski has now filed several motions which essentially ask the Court to re-visit its sentence. (ECF Nos. 72, 73, 76.) But the Court cannot do such a thing. Once a district court sentences a defendant, it only has jurisd
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . The judge previously assigned to this case sentenced defendant Paul Rutkowski to 135 months imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release, after Rutkowski pled guilty to numerous offenses. (ECF No. 53.) Rutkowski has now filed several motions which essentially ask the Court to re-visit its sentence. (ECF Nos. 72, 73, 76.) But the Court cannot do such a thing. Once a district court sentences a defendant, it only has jurisdi..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
The judge previously assigned to this case sentenced defendant Paul Rutkowski to 135 months imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release, after Rutkowski pled guilty to numerous offenses. (ECF No. 53.) Rutkowski has now filed several motions which essentially ask the Court to re-visit its sentence. (ECF Nos. 72, 73, 76.) But the Court cannot do such a thing. Once a district court sentences a defendant, it only has jurisdiction to continue hearing related issues when authorized by statute or rule. United States v. Goode, 342 F.3d 741, 743 (7th Cir. 2003). And here, although Rutkowski appears to be invoking 18 U.S.C. § 3582-83, the Court has no jurisdiction to consider such a request unless it is made by the Bureau of Prisons. United States v. Jumah, 431 F. App'x 494, 496 (7th Cir. 2011). Because these motions were filed pro se by Rutkowski and not by the Bureau of Prisons, the Court must DENY them. (ECF Nos. 72, 73, 76.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
