U.S. v. Davis

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANTE DAVIS

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: Jul 13, 2010

No. CR-07-0038 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 13, 2010)

Opinion

No. CR-07-0038.

July 13, 2010

OPINION AND ORDER

S. SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Reduce and Modify Sentence (doc. 41) and the United States' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Reduce and Modify Sentence (doc. 42).

Defendant requests that this Court, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b), modify his previously imposed sentence (doc. 41). In support of his motion, Defendant expresses his apologies to the Court for his past criminal acts and asserts that he has left behind the criminal lifestyle and wants to make positive changes in his life (Id.). He also adds his past criminal behavior did not harm anyone, and a reduction in his sentence would not be contrary to the interest of justice or society's interests (Id.).

The government responds that Defendant's reliance on Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 is misplaced, noting that Rule 35 section (a) only allows for correction of a clear sentencing error within fourteen days, and section (b) only allows for sentence modification for a defendant's substantial assistance to the government, if such a request is made by the government (doc. 42). The government asserts that neither section of Rule 35 is applicable because the defendant made no objections to the sentencing judgment, has not asserted clear error of the sentence, and has not provided substantial assistance to the government in an investigation (Id.). As such, the government requests that the Court deny Defendant's motion in its entirety (Id.).

Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds the government's position well-taken and agrees with the government that Defendant's reliance on Rule 35(b) is misplaced. Defendant seems to rely on an older version of Rule 35(b) that only applies to offenses committed prior to November 1, 1987. Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. Defendant committed his offense in December of 2006 (doc. 27), therefore the Court must apply the current version of Rule 35. Defendant has not shown clear sentencing error, has not substantially assisted the government, and the government has not filed a motion asking for his sentence to be reduced. Accordingly, this Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Reduce and Modify Sentence (doc. 41).

Although the Court cannot grant Defendant's motion, the Court appreciates and accepts Defendant's apologies and commends Defendant for his commitment to leave behind his former criminal lifestyle.

SO ORDERED.

Exhibit