Filed: Dec. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER STEPHEN P. FRIOT , District Judge . Defendant, Justin Todd Haynes, has moved, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c), to modify his sentence, relying upon Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Doc. no. 55. 1 Upon review, the court finds that no response from the government is required. The court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to modify defendant's sentence. "Federal courts generally lack jurisdiction to modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed." United S
Summary: ORDER STEPHEN P. FRIOT , District Judge . Defendant, Justin Todd Haynes, has moved, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c), to modify his sentence, relying upon Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Doc. no. 55. 1 Upon review, the court finds that no response from the government is required. The court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to modify defendant's sentence. "Federal courts generally lack jurisdiction to modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed." United St..
More
ORDER
STEPHEN P. FRIOT, District Judge.
Defendant, Justin Todd Haynes, has moved, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), to modify his sentence, relying upon Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Doc. no. 55.1 Upon review, the court finds that no response from the government is required. The court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to modify defendant's sentence.
"Federal courts generally lack jurisdiction to modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed." United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275, 1277 (10th Cir. 2013) (citing Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819 (2010)). "`[A] district court is authorized to modify a defendant's sentence only in specified instances where Congress has expressly granted the court jurisdiction to do so.'" United States v. Baker, 769 F.3d 1196, 1198 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Price, 438 F.3d 1005, 1007 (10th Cir. 2006)).
"Congress expressly granted district courts limited jurisdiction to modify sentences in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)." Baker, 769 F.3d at 1198. Section 3582(c)(1)(B) permits the district court to "modify an imposed term of imprisonment to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). "Like § 3582(c), Rule 35's requirements are jurisdictional." Baker, 769 F.3d at 1198.
Rule 35(a) permits the court "within 14 days after sentencing" to correct a sentence "that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error." Rule 35(a), Fed. R. Crim. P. Defendant's sentence was imposed more than 14 days from the filing of his motion.
Rule 35(b)(1) permits the court to reduce a sentence "[u]pon the government's motion made within one year of sentencing." Rule 35(b)(1), Fed. R. Crim. P. Under limited circumstances, Rule 35(b)(2) extends authority to modify a sentence beyond the one-year time period. However, again, the court may reduce a sentence under Rule 35(b)(2) only "[u]pon the government's motion." Rule 35(b)(2), Fed. R. Crim. P. In this case, the government has not filed any motion on defendant's behalf.
Because defendant's motion does not fall within the jurisdiction that Rule 35 provides the court for reducing a sentence and does not fall within any of the other jurisdictional grants in section 3582(c) for modifying a sentence, the court concludes that it has no jurisdiction to modify defendant's sentence. Defendant's motion therefore must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.2
Accordingly, the motion of defendant, Justin Todd Haynes, to modify his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), based upon Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
