U.S. v. HARE, 3:09-826 (CMC). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20151204c20
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 03, 2015
Summary: OPINION and ORDER CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court pursuant to Defendant's pro se motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 1305. Defendant seeks reconsideration of the court's denial of relief under Amendment 750. See Order, ECF No. 1002 (filed Feb. 24, 2012). Pursuant to United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233 , 236 (4th Cir. 2010), "the clear intent of 3582 is to constrain postjudgment sentence modifications. . . ." Section 3582(c) "
Summary: OPINION and ORDER CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court pursuant to Defendant's pro se motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 1305. Defendant seeks reconsideration of the court's denial of relief under Amendment 750. See Order, ECF No. 1002 (filed Feb. 24, 2012). Pursuant to United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233 , 236 (4th Cir. 2010), "the clear intent of 3582 is to constrain postjudgment sentence modifications. . . ." Section 3582(c) "g..
More
OPINION and ORDER
CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court pursuant to Defendant's pro se motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 1305. Defendant seeks reconsideration of the court's denial of relief under Amendment 750. See Order, ECF No. 1002 (filed Feb. 24, 2012).
Pursuant to United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 2010), "the clear intent of § 3582 is to constrain postjudgment sentence modifications. . . ." Section § 3582(c) "gives a district court one — and only one — opportunity to apply the retroactive amendments and modify the sentence." United States v. Mann, 435 F. App'x 254, 254 (2011) (citing Goodwyn, 596 F.3d at 236); see also United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain Defendant's motion for relief under § 3582(c).
Therefore, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is dismissed as this court is without jurisdiction to entertain it.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
