ORDER

R. BRYAN HARWELL, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on the defendant's pro se motion, filed on April 7, 2014, to reduce his sentence. The defendant requests a reduction on the basis of the "sentencing commission's new adopted policy for a Two-Point reduction in non-violent first time offenders drug sentences, unanimously approved in August 2013 FR. FR 51820, and in light of the Attorney General's stern affirmance and approval of such a necessary and important approach endorsed on March 13th 2014."

This court previously sentenced the defendant on December 17, 2009 to a term of imprisonment of one hundred fifty-one (151) months, and the judgment was entered accordingly on December 28, 2009. No appeal was taken.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b), a judgment of conviction that includes a sentence of imprisonment is generally considered a final judgment for all purposes. There are, however, very limited circumstances set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), which allow a court to modify a term of imprisonment. Those limited circumstances only allow a court to modify a term of imprisonment if:

(1) there is a motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and (a) the court finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction, or (b) the defendant is at least 70 years of age and has served 30 years in prison; (2) pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; or (3) the defendant has been sentenced based on a sentence range that has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).

In this case, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons has not filed any motions; nor can the defendant require them to do so. Likewise, Rule 35 allows for correction of sentence if: (1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the law; or (2) upon motion of the government. The government has not filed a motion, and the court finds that the sentence was not in violation of the law. Furthermore, the defendant's sentencing range has not been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.

For the reasons stated above, the court finds that the defendant has not set forth a sufficient basis to warrant a modification or reduction in his sentence, and therefore, the motion [Entry #187] is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.