Opinion
Case No. 2:12-CR-00218
07-23-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM DAVID TAYLOR, SR., Defendants.
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant William David Taylor's pro se Motion for Adjustment of Sentence (Doc. 84). Defendant, currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Morgantown, WV, asks the Court to adjust his 30-month sentence by increasing it to 31 months, thereby permitting him to receive a greater benefit after his anticipated completion of the Residential Drug and Alcohol Program ("RDAP"). (Doc. 84 at 1). The United States opposes, on the grounds that Defendant has demonstrated neither the procedural mechanism, nor good cause, for such a de facto reduction in his sentence. (Doc. 83 at 2).
For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant's Motion is hereby DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant was convicted by jury verdict of two counts of filing a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), after a multi-day trial held on July 1 through July 10, 2013. (Doc. 36). At sentencing, Defendant opted to represent himself in order to make various objections to the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR"), with standby assistance from his trial counsel. (See Doc. 60). Sentencing took place on November 15, 2013 (see Doc. 64), at which time Defendant was sentenced to thirty (30) months' imprisonment on each of Counts I and II, to be served concurrently, followed by one year of supervised release. (Doc. 65). Judgment was entered December 6, 2013. (Id.). On December 10, 2013, Defendant filed his notice of appeal. (Doc. 67). The Court of Appeals denied Defendant's request to stay his prison term pending appeal. (Doc. 73).
On May 8, 2014, Defendant filed the Motion sub judice, seeking adjustment of his sentence. (Doc. 84).
II. ANALYSIS
Defendant asserts that, while incarcerated, he has been found qualified to participate in FCI Morgantown's RDAP, which Defendant describes as an "intensive modified treatment community under which participant[s] undergo behavior modification for both addiction and criminal behaviors." (Doc. 84 at 1). Successful completion of the program would reward Defendant with a 6-month reduction in his sentence; if Defendant had been sentenced to a 31-month sentence, successful completion of RDAP, he alleges, would earn him a 9-month reduction. (Id.). Accordingly, Defendant asks that the Court increase his sentence by one month, in order to avoid being "penalized unjustly for his successful participation." (Id.).
The United States opposes. (Doc. 83). It argues that, while Defendant ostensibly seeks a 1-month sentence increase, he in fact asks for a reduction in his sentence by 8 months, since a 31-month sentence, in conjunction with RDAP, would make him eligible for a 22-month prison sentence, followed by a 6-month term in a "halfway house." (Id. at 1). The United States thus concludes that Defendant's Motion must be denied, since he has not shown his eligibility for a reduction under either prong of Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. In addition, the United States notes that the Court's sentence focused on the need for a prison term which would deter Defendant from further violations, as well as protect the public from his criminal conduct; there have been no changes in the circumstances, the United States maintains, to alter these concerns. (Id. at 2).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the Court may modify an existing term of imprisonment: upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, in certain circumstances; when a sentencing range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o); or as permitted by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3582(c)(1)(A)-(B), (2).
Rule 35 provides the Court may correct or reduce a sentence in two circumstances: (a) within 14 days after sentencing, to correct the result of an arithmetical, technical, or other clear error; or (b) upon motion by the United States, if the defendant provided substantial assistance after sentencing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), (b).
None of the circumstances enumerated in § 3582 obtains here. No motion has been made by the Bureau of Prisons, or by the United States. No change in the relevant Sentencing Guidelines is alleged to have occurred. And no clerical error took place. Instead, Defendant appeals only to the Court's sense of fairness, when he points to the lesser benefit he would receive after completion of RDAP, given his 30-month, rather than 31-month, sentence. But considerations of fairness, as well as deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the public, were part of the Court's consideration when it imposed its sentence. Defendant can, and has, appealed his conviction. He has presented no good reason here for the Court to reconsider its sentence.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion (Doc. 84) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE