ORDER

JAMES H. PAYNE, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant/Petitioner Tonia Rene Mullins' Motion for Downward Departure,1 Government's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Downward Departure,2 and Petitioner's Response [sic] to Government's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Downward Departure.3 As detailed below, this Court lacks jurisdiction to modify Defendant/Petitioner's sentence. Therefore, Defendant/Petitioner's Motion for Downward Departure must be DENIED.

Defendant/Petitioner was charged with Conspiracy to Use Interstate Commerce Facilities in the Commission of Murder for Hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1958.4 On June 8, 2009, following entry of a guilty plea, this Court sentenced Defendant/Petitioner to 72 months' imprisonment.5 Defendant/Petitioner neither directly appealed nor filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255. Defendant/Petitioner now files the instant "Motion for Downward Departure", two years after her Judgment and Commitment, seeking an 18-month sentence reduction based on her participation in numerous education and rehabilitation programs during her incarceration.6

"[A] district court does not have inherent authority to modify a previously imposed sentence; it may do so only pursuant to statutory authority."7 Where a motion for sentencing reduction "is not a direct appeal or a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. §2255, the viability of [the] motion depends entirely on [the applicability of] 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)."8 Under Section 3582(c), a court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except in three limited circumstances:

The sentence from which Defendant/Petitioner seeks a downward departure was imposed by this Court on June 8, 2009. Without some statutory authority, this Court is without jurisdiction to grant a departure. Defendant/Petitioner offers no statutory authority to support her position, and does not bring this motion either as a direct appeal of her sentence or as a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. §2255.10 Lacking any other statutory authority, and outside the avenues of direct appeal and collateral attack, Defendant/Petitioner's motion must be considered in light of 18 U.S.C. §3582(c).11

Defendant/Petitioner has not provided any motion from the Director of the Bureau of Prisons that would permit the Court to review her case for "special circumstances." Further, Defendant/Petitioner has offered no allegations of "arithmetical, technical, or other clear error" or that her sentence was otherwise incorrect, therefore obviating a Rule 35 analysis. Finally, Defendant/Petitioner has not alleged that she was sentenced under a Guidelines range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Defendant/Petitioner's only support lies in cases that are all procedurally distinct from the instant one.12 Without a showing that one of the three §3582(c) factors apply, this Court is without jurisdiction to modify Defendant/Petitioner's sentence. As this court is without jurisdiction to hear Defendant/Petitioner's Motion for Downward Departure, the Motion is rightfully DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.