U.S. v. JAMES, 09-cr-00484-PAB. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20150106924
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the letter from defendant Douglas Edward James seeking a reduction in his sentence. Docket No. 36. The Court construes Mr. James' request as a motion to reduce his sentence. Mr. James does not identify any authority for his request. Moreover, he identifies personal as opposed to legal reasons to grant his motion. However, a "district court does not have inherent authority to substantively modify a previously imposed
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the letter from defendant Douglas Edward James seeking a reduction in his sentence. Docket No. 36. The Court construes Mr. James' request as a motion to reduce his sentence. Mr. James does not identify any authority for his request. Moreover, he identifies personal as opposed to legal reasons to grant his motion. However, a "district court does not have inherent authority to substantively modify a previously imposed ..
More
ORDER
PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the letter from defendant Douglas Edward James seeking a reduction in his sentence. Docket No. 36. The Court construes Mr. James' request as a motion to reduce his sentence. Mr. James does not identify any authority for his request. Moreover, he identifies personal as opposed to legal reasons to grant his motion. However, a "district court does not have inherent authority to substantively modify a previously imposed sentence. It may make modifications only pursuant to statutory authorization." United States v. Kieffer, No. 13-1371, 2014 WL 7238565, at *5 (10th Cir. Dec. 22, 2014) (unpublished), citing United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 540 (10th Cir. 1997), and United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275, 1277 (10th Cir. 2013). Construing defendant's request liberally, the Court is not aware of any authority, in particular Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 and 36, that would justify a modification or reduction of Mr. James' sentence for the reasons that he notes. As a result, it is
ORDERED that Mr. James' motion for reduction of sentence [Docket No. 36] is denied.
Source: Leagle
