James K. Bredar, Chief Judge

Mark Walter Crooks, Rod J Rosenstein, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for United States of America.

Elizabeth Genevieve Oyer, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, MD, for Timothy Emeigh.

ORDER

James K. Bredar, Chief Judge

On June 17, 2016 this Court sentenced Defendant Timothy Emeigh to forty-eight months incarceration after he pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1347. (Judgment, ECF No. 27.) Defendant began his term of incarceration on September 19, 2016. (See Attachment to Motion to Reduce or Reconsider Sentence, ECF No. 32–1.) On January 11, 2018, with roughly thirty-two months of incarceration left to serve in his sentence, Defendant wrote a letter to the Court and attached a "Motion for Judicial Recommendation." (Motion to Reduce or Reconsider, ECF No. 32.) In substance, Defendant requests that, because he has completed various rehabilitation programs and served without incident, the Court "recommend" to the Bureau of Prisons that his remaining sentence be reduced by twenty months, such that he would have twelve months remaining, six of which he would serve at a halfway house and six of which he would serve under home confinement. (Id. ) The Court will treat this motion as a motion to reduce or reconsider the sentence. See U.S. v. Davis , Crim. No. DKC 11-0090, 2012 WL 1553066, at *1 (D. Md. Apr. 27, 2012) (treating a letter "requesting a reduction of sentence based on [defendant's] positive utilization of incarceration by completing programs" as a "motion to reduce or reconsider sentence").

The Court commends Defendant on his accomplishments and understands his desire to reintegrate into society. However, as the relief requested is for a modification of Defendant's sentence, the Court must follow 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), which dictates that a court "may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed," except under certain circumstances, none of which apply here. This is not a motion from the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, the reduction Defendant requests is not "expressly permitted by statute or Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures," and the Court is aware of no relevant changes to the sentencing guidelines that have occurred subsequent to Defendant's sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The Defendant has therefore not provided any basis for the Court to reduce or reconsider his sentence. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendant's motion (ECF No. 32), construed as a motion to reduce or reconsider Defendant's sentence, is DENIED.