ORDER

TERRENCE W. BOYLE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on a pro se letter submitted by defendant in which she requests a reduction in her sentence. [DE 207]. Defendant does not raise any issues with the soundness of her sentencing; she merely argues that her post-sentencing behavior and family circumstances entitle her to a sentence reduction. Therefore, the Court does not construe her letter as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Instead, the Court construes defendant's letter merely as a prose motion for sentence reduction.

Though it is clear that defendant desires a reduction in her sentence based on her post-sentencing rehabilitation and family circumstances, she cites no legal authority for such a reduction. "[W]hen a defendant's sentence has been set aside on appeal and his case remanded for resentencing, a district court may consider evidence of a defendant's rehabilitation since his prior sentencing." Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 490 (2011). Unfortunately, Pepper is inapposite here, as defendant's sentence has not been set aside on appeal nor has her case has not been remanded for resentencing. Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 3742 does not "grant jurisdiction to a district court to review a final sentence." United States v. Auman, 8 F.3d 1268, 1271 (8th Cir. 1993).

In sum, defendant has articulated no authority that would allow her sentence to be reduced pursuant to her post-sentencing conduct. Accordingly, her letter, construed herein as a motion for sentence reduction [DE 207], is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.