U.S. v. SPAULDING, CR4I0-00108-001. (2013)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20130904998
Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 03, 2013
Summary: ORDER B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge. On September 11, 2012, the Court entered an Order denying Defendant's Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). On August 7, 2013, Defendant filed a subsequent Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Motion was postmarked August 5, 2013. Defendant requests a reduction based upon the retroactive application of Amendment 750. Since the motion is a pro se motion, the Court will liberally construe the
Summary: ORDER B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge. On September 11, 2012, the Court entered an Order denying Defendant's Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). On August 7, 2013, Defendant filed a subsequent Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Motion was postmarked August 5, 2013. Defendant requests a reduction based upon the retroactive application of Amendment 750. Since the motion is a pro se motion, the Court will liberally construe the ..
More
ORDER
B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge.
On September 11, 2012, the Court entered an Order denying Defendant's Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
On August 7, 2013, Defendant filed a subsequent Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Motion was postmarked August 5, 2013. Defendant requests a reduction based upon the retroactive application of Amendment 750. Since the motion is a pro se motion, the Court will liberally construe the motion to be a Motion to Reconsider the Court's denial of his previous § 3582(c)(2) motion. This Court has jurisdiction over a motion to reconsider its decision in a § 3582 proceeding only within the 14 days following that decision allowed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) for correction of sentence. See United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1198 (11th Cir. 2010) (applying Rule 35(a) limitation to reconsideration of grant of 3582 motion); United States v. Blaine, 409 Fed. Appx. 253, 261 & n.10 (11th Cir. 2010) (denial of 3582 motion).
Defendant's Motion to Reconsider was not timely submitted and is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
