From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Olivo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 3, 2020
19-CR-484 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2020)

Opinion

19-CR-484 (KMW)

11-03-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ORIS SANCHEZ OLIVO, Defendant.


ORDER :

Defendant Olivo moved, on October 15, 2020, to correct her sentence pursuant to Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Rule 35(a) provides that, "[w]ithin 14 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error." Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). Rule 35(a) "is not intended to afford the court the opportunity to reconsider the application or interpretation of the sentencing guidelines[,] or for the court simply to change its mind about the appropriateness of the sentence." United States v. Abreu-Cabrera, 64 F.3d 67, 72 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 35, 1991 Advisory Cmte. Note) (emphasis omitted). As such, "Rule 35(a) does not authorize a sentencing court to reconsider either the facts or the sentencing guidelines underlying its originally imposed sentence." United States v. Eberhard, No. 03 Cr. 562 (RWS), 2005 WL 2172031, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2005)); accord United States v. Goddard, No. 17 Cr. 439 (LAP), 2018 WL 4440503, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2018) (same). Rather, "[a] district court's concededly narrow authority to correct a sentence imposed as a result of 'clear error' is limited to 'cases in which an obvious error or mistake has occurred in the sentence, that is, errors which would almost certainly result in a remand of the case to the trial court for further action under Rule 35(a).'" United States v. Waters, 84 F.3d 86, 89 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Abreu-Cabrera, 64 F.3d at 72).

The Court heard and considered the arguments of counsel, reviewed and considered all of the factors under Section 3553(a), and imposed a below-guidelines sentence free from any "arithmetical, technical, or other clear error" on February 26, 2020. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). Accordingly, Rule 35 does not permit revision of that sentence.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendant's Rule 35 motion.

SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York

November 3, 2020

/s/_________

KIMBA M. WOOD

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Olivo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 3, 2020
19-CR-484 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2020)
Case details for

United States v. Olivo

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ORIS SANCHEZ OLIVO, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Nov 3, 2020

Citations

19-CR-484 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2020)