IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 21, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
On March 31, 2011, this court sentenced defendant to a term of sixteen months imprisonment following defendant's guilty plea to conspiracy to commit bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349) and a term of twenty-four months imprisonment following defendant's guilty plea to one count of aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A (a)(1)). The court ordered the terms to run consecutively for a total term of forty months. ECF Nos. 124, 127.
On April 12, 2012, defendant filed a request that the court modify her sentence so that the terms run concurrently. ECF No. 163. For the following reasons, the court DENIES the request.
A court's authority to modify a previously-imposed sentence is restricted by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) to a limited number of circumstances: it may be modified if the Director of the Bureau of Prisons moves for a modification or may be modified "to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." See United States v. Barragan-Mendoza, 174 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 1999). The court has no inherent authority to modify a sentence. Id.
Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides only that a court "may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error" within fourteen days after sentencing, or may reduce a sentence if the government seeks a reduction for the defendant's substantial assistance. It does not give this court authority to modify a sentence in other circumstances. Id. In this case, defendant was sentenced over a year ago and has not pointed to any technical or other clear error nor has the government sought a modification.
As this court lacks jurisdiction to modify defendant's sentence, her request for a modification (ECF No. 163) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.