Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. Jacqueline Craft

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 21, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JACQUELINE CRAFT,
DEFENDANT.

ORDER

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.

20120521

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.