Opinion
Case No. 2:05CR20038-003.
March 6, 2006
ORDER
Currently before the court is Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence (Doc. 348) pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Government's Response (Doc. 350). Defendant moves the Court to reduce his sentence based upon what he contends are errors in the Court's calculation of the guideline range.
Rule 35 allows the Court to correct or reduce a sentence in certain instances: (1) within 7 days after sentencing to correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error; and (2) upon the government's motion indicating the defendant provided substantial assistance. Defendant does not allege that either instance applies in his case, and the Court finds that a reduction of Defendant's sentence pursuant to Rule 35 is not warranted. Instead, Defendant's Motion focuses on errors he believes were committed in the Court's calculation of his guideline sentencing range.
Defendant was represented by counsel during the preparation of the presentence report in this matter and was afforded ample opportunity to object to any portion of the report he felt was in error, including the proposed guideline calculations. Additionally, Defendant had an opportunity at his sentencing hearing to object to the Court's calculation of his guideline sentencing range. Finally, any objections to the presentence report that were not raised at sentencing are waived. United States v. Mora-Higuera, 269 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2001). Upon due consideration, the motion is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.