From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
Jan 18, 2017
Cr. No. 3:11-2333-CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 18, 2017)

Opinion

Cr. No. 3:11-2333-CMC

01-18-2017

United States of America, v. Contaurus Dermont Smith, Defendant.


Opinion and Order

This matter is before the court on Defendant's motion to modify his sentence. ECF No. 79. Defendant asks that his sentence be modified pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 based on his post rehabilitation conduct.

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, including "extraordinary and compelling 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. Id. Despite Defendant's arguments, none of these provisions apply to Defendant's request.

Apart from 18 U.S.C. § 3582, a district court has no jurisdiction to alter a defendant's term of imprisonment except as authorized by Rule 35(a) or 18 U.S.C. § 3742.

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 is well past. Therefore, the court is without jurisdiction to act upon Defendant's motion in this regard.

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. The Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence. ECF No. 65.

The court lacks jurisdiction to modify or restructure Defendant's sentence, and therefore, Defendant's motion to modify sentence is denied for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Cameron McGowan Currie

CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE

Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina
January 18, 2017


Summaries of

United States v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
Jan 18, 2017
Cr. No. 3:11-2333-CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 18, 2017)
Case details for

United States v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:United States of America, v. Contaurus Dermont Smith, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

Date published: Jan 18, 2017

Citations

Cr. No. 3:11-2333-CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 18, 2017)