U.S. v. TURNER, CR416-110. (2017)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20170530660
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 02, 2017
Latest Update: May 02, 2017
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Federal Sentence. (Doc. 21.) In the motion, Defendant requests that the Court consolidate Defendant's federal sentence with his later imposed state sentences so that they run concurrently. Defendant is not entitled to relief in this case. First, the Court may not modify Defendant's sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). That section authorizes the modification of a defendant's sentence
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Federal Sentence. (Doc. 21.) In the motion, Defendant requests that the Court consolidate Defendant's federal sentence with his later imposed state sentences so that they run concurrently. Defendant is not entitled to relief in this case. First, the Court may not modify Defendant's sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). That section authorizes the modification of a defendant's sentence (..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Federal Sentence. (Doc. 21.) In the motion, Defendant requests that the Court consolidate Defendant's federal sentence with his later imposed state sentences so that they run concurrently. Defendant is not entitled to relief in this case.
First, the Court may not modify Defendant's sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). That section authorizes the modification of a defendant's sentence (1) if the Director of the Bureau of Prisons has moved for such a reduction based on either extraordinary and compelling reasons or because the defendant is at least 70 years old, has served a term of at least 30 years in prison, and is not a danger to the community; (2) pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; or (3) if the defendant's sentencing range has been retroactively lowered by the sentencing commission. None of these situations are applicable to Defendant. Second, the Court explicitly stated when it sentenced Defendant that his federal sentence should "be served consecutively to any sentence which may be imposed upon the revocation of his state term of parole." (Doc. 19 at 2.) Accordingly, the Court has neither the authority nor the inclination to grant Defendant's motion. Defendant's motion (Doc. 21) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
