Filed: Nov. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOHN C. COUGHENOUR , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to United States v. Smith, 27 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (Dkt. No. 1207). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein. I. BACKGROUND Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and attempted posse
Summary: ORDER JOHN C. COUGHENOUR , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to United States v. Smith, 27 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (Dkt. No. 1207). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein. I. BACKGROUND Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and attempted posses..
More
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to United States v. Smith, 27 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (Dkt. No. 1207). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. (Dkt. No. 821.) On November 9, 2012, the Court sentenced Defendant to 144 months of incarceration to be followed by five years of supervised release. (Dkt. No. 901.) Defendant moves for a 13-month reduction in his sentence. (Dkt. No. 1207.)
II. DISCUSSION
"[A] district court does not have inherent power to resentence defendants at any time. Its authority to do so must flow either from the court of appeals mandate . . . or from Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35." United States v. Ceballos, 671 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Handa, 122 F.3d 690, 691 (9th Cir. 1997)); see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 3582(b), (c) (stating grounds upon which a court may modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed).
The D.C. Circuit's decision in Smith concerned a downward departure that may be applied at sentencing "where the defendant's status as a deportable alien is likely to cause a fortuitous increase in the severity of his sentence." Smith, 27 F.3d at 655. The decision does not provide courts with authority to modify a previously imposed sentence. No other ground authorizing the Court to modify Defendant's sentence presently exists. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3582(b), (c); Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. Thus, the Court lacks the jurisdiction to modify Defendant's sentence in the manner he has requested, and his motion is DENIED.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for a reduction in his sentence pursuant to Smith (Dkt. No. 1207) is DENIED. Defendant's pending motion for leave to file a reply and for an extension of time to file a reply (Dkt. No. 1210) is DENIED.
