OPINION & ORDER

[Resolving Doc. 33]

JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.

Defendant Dante D. Harrison has filed a motion to reduce or modify his terms of supervised release and sentence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), 3582(c)(2), 3553(a), 3583(b); Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b)(1)(B); Setser v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1463 (2012); Johnson v. United States, __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015); Welch v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b); and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.1

For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Harrison's motion without prejudice. Defendant Harrison may file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for his Johnson and Welch arguments.

I. Background

Defendant Harrison pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(A)(i); and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(c).2

This Court sentenced Harrison to 24 months each for Counts 1 and 3, to be served concurrently, followed by a mandatory 60-month term for Count 2 and three years of supervised release.3

II. Legal Standard

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the "court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed" except in the following relevant circumstances:

III. Discussion

a. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(a)(i)

Title 18 United States Code, Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) provides relief from judgment for "extraordinary and compelling reasons" based "upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons."5 Here, the Bureau of Prisons has not filed a motion on behalf of Defendant Harrison. Accordingly, this Court DENIES Harrison's motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

b. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Under § 3582(c)(2), the Court may reduce Harrison's sentence only if (1) that sentence is "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered" and (2) "if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission."6

Harrison is incorrect that Amendments 782, 787, and 789 render him eligible for a reduced sentence or a reduced period of supervised release.7 First, Amendment 782 is already reflected in Defendant Harrison's sentence. At sentencing, this Court gave Defendant a two-level reduction in his offense level pursuant to Amendment 782.8

Second, neither Amendment 787 nor Amendment 789 apply to Harrison. Amendment 787 addresses certain cases where a defendant is subject to another term of imprisonment, such as an undischarged term of imprisonment or an anticipated term of imprisonment. Harrison was not subject to another term of imprisonment.9 Amendment 789 makes technical and clerical changes to the Introduction and Commentary of the Guidelines Manual that have no effect on Harrison's sentence.

Harrison is not eligible for a sentence reduction because this Court already took into account the Guideline Amendment affecting his sentence. Accordingly, this Court DENIES Harrison's motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).

c. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

Harrison is not entitled to relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because it offers no means to seek relief from a sentence. Accordingly, Harrison's motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is DENIED.

d. 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b), "[a] defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences." Harrison argues that this Court should reduce his sentence or supervised release to reflect credit for his time served.10

Harrison's argument loses. Harrison does not specify a time period for which he should be credited. Furthermore, although this Court ordered that Defendant Harrison be given credit for time served,11 calculating credit for time served is the responsibility of the Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons.12 Therefore, this Court is not authorized to compute the credit.13

e. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b)(1)(B)

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b)(1)(B) allows courts to permit delayed filing of a motion based upon "excusable neglect." Harrison provides no basis for his claim under Rule 45(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, this Court DENIES Harrison's motion under Rule 45(b)(1)(B).

f. Setser, Johnson, and Welch

Harrison seeks relief under Setser v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1463 (2012), Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), and Welch v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016).14

Harrison is not entitled to relief under Setser, which held that "a district court has the discretion to order that a federal sentence run consecutively to an anticipated state sentence that has not yet been imposed."15 The Court is not aware of Harrison having a current or anticipated state sentence.16 Therefore, the Court DENIES Harrison's motion under Setser.

Harrison's Johnson and Welch arguments are more properly presented as a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Johnson and Welch involve the invalidation of the Armed Career Criminals Act's residual clause. The Court declines to transform Defendant Harrison's motion into a § 2255 petition.17 Therefore, the Court DENIES Harrison's motion under Johnson and Welch without prejudice.

g. 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Harrison provides no basis for a claim under either 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) or 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Harrison's motion under both 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 are DENIED.18

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Defendant Harrison's motion without prejudice. Defendant Harrison may file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for his Johnson and Welch arguments.

IT IS SO ORDERED.