Filed: Nov. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's pro se letter, which the Court construes as a Motion for Clarification/Correction of Sentence (doc. 78), and Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Court Recommendation to Bureau of Prisons that it Designate State Institution or Facility as Place of Confinement for Service of Federal Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc to Date of Federal Sentence (doc. 79). On December 14, 2004, the Federal Grand Jury for the Norther
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's pro se letter, which the Court construes as a Motion for Clarification/Correction of Sentence (doc. 78), and Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Court Recommendation to Bureau of Prisons that it Designate State Institution or Facility as Place of Confinement for Service of Federal Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc to Date of Federal Sentence (doc. 79). On December 14, 2004, the Federal Grand Jury for the Northern..
More
ORDER
M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's pro se letter, which the Court construes as a Motion for Clarification/Correction of Sentence (doc. 78), and Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Court Recommendation to Bureau of Prisons that it Designate State Institution or Facility as Place of Confinement for Service of Federal Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc to Date of Federal Sentence (doc. 79).
On December 14, 2004, the Federal Grand Jury for the Northern District of Florida returned a single-count Indictment against Defendant charging him with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At that time, Defendant was in state custody pending charges of robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The charge in the instant case and the charges in the state case were based on the same offense conduct. Defendant appeared before this Court for sentencing on December 7, 2005, and at that time, although he had not yet been sentenced on the pending state charges, Defendant had been in state custody since his arrest on July 25, 2004. Therefore, this Court imposed a sentence of 188 months imprisonment, the lowest point of the applicable guideline range, to ensure Defendant received credit as a practical matter for the time already served. (See doc. 43). Additionally, in consideration of the relevant conduct provisions of U.S.S.G. §5G1.3(b), it was the Court's intent that the federal sentence run concurrent with the state sentence yet to be imposed, notwithstanding that the Judgment entered December 13, 2005 (doc. 43) did not specifically address the issue of the undischarged term of imprisonment (see Minute Entry, doc. 42). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds it appropriate to amend the Judgment to reflect the Court's intent at the time of sentencing.
Accordingly, Defendant's pro se letter (doc. 78) and unopposed motion (doc. 79) are GRANTED. The judgment will be amended to reflect the Court's intention at the time of sentencing that the federal sentence imposed December 7, 2005, run concurrent with the sentence imposed in state case #1704CR03317A-A.
DONE and ORDERED.
