Opinion
CRIMINAL NO. 3:12-96-CMC
04-14-2014
United States of America, v. Robin Newman Maner, Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendant's motion seeking an "addendum to my judgement [sic] for a modification to the last 12 months of my sentence." ECF No. 53. Much like two motions previously filed by Defendant, she seeks to serve a portion of her sentence on home confinement.
Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a court to "correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error" within fourteen days after the oral announcement of the sentence. See Rules 35(a) and (c), Fed.R.Crim.P. The sentence was orally announced on June 27, 2012, and, accordingly, the deadline for any action by the court on a Rule 35(a) motion has passed. Therefore, the court is without jurisdiction to act upon Defendant's motion in this regard.
Apart from Rule 35(a), a district court has no jurisdiction to alter a defendant's term of imprisonment except as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3582 or 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
Title 18 United States Code § 3582(c) limits the court's authority to modify a final judgment that includes a sentence of imprisonment to three specific circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (the court can modify a judgment (1) upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") for statutorily-specified reasons, (2) upon motion of the government for substantial assistance, or (3) upon motion of the defendant or the BOP, or upon the court's own motion, because of a subsequent lowering of the applicable sentencing range). None of these circumstances applies to Defendant.
After an appeal, the court can modify a sentence if the sentence is found by the appellate court to have been imposed in violation of law or imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines, as provided for in 18 U.S.C. § 3742. Defendant has not appealed her conviction or sentence.
Defendant's motion does not allege that any of these circumstances applies. The court lacks jurisdiction to modify Defendant's sentence, and therefore, Defendant's motion is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
To the extent this court has jurisdiction to entertain Defendant's motion, the court recommends Defendant be provided any relief under the Second Chance Act for which she qualifies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
April 14, 2014