Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION No. 13-160 SECTION I
07-18-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SAM MICHELE III
ORDER AND REASONS
Sam Michelle III moves for this Court to reconsider its prior reduction of his sentence so as to lower it further as well as reduce his sentence pursuant to the "Holloway Doctrine". See R. Doc. Nos. 241, 246.
The Court declines to revisit its prior reduction of Michele's sentence. In the first place, Michele highlights no error with this Court's calculation of the guidelines and, indeed, his proposed calculation ignores this Court's application of a four-point enhancement for being an organizer/leader of the criminal activity. But even more importantly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Michele's argument insofar as it was not raised within 14 days of his (re)sentencing. See United States v. Thompson, 417 F. App'x 429, 432 (5th Cir. 2014); Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) ("Within 14 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.").
That leaves Michelle's arguments with respect to the "Holloway Doctrine." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) "forbids the Court from modifying a sentence except as authorized by statute or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." United States v. Wilson, No. 07-132, 2017 WL 784611, at *3 (M.D. Fl. Mar. 1, 2017). So the Holloway "doctrine" is not in fact a judicial doctrine that may be applied by the Court, but rather a single instance of a federal district court circumventing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) by "ask[ing] the United States Attorney to reconsider exercising her discretion to agree to an order vacating two or more of Holloway's . . . convictions so he could face a more just resentencing." 68 F. Supp. 3d 310, 314 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). This Court declines to follow Holloway in circumventing § 3582(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to reduce sentence is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, July 18, 2017.
/s/ _________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE