Opinion
16-CR-826-LTS
11-30-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AMAR AHMED, Defendant.
SEALING ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court has received Defendant Amar Ahmed's pro se communication, attached hereto as an exhibit, which is denominated as a motion seeking review of a Bureau of Prison's custody determination and also requests, as an alternative, resentencing. Because Mr. Ahmed's communication also attaches sensitive records, such as personal contact and medical information, the Court will file that attachment separately under seal.
The Court does not have the authority to entertain Mr. Ahmed's requests. The BOP has sole authority to, among other things, designate an inmate's place of imprisonment and direct the transfer of an inmate from one facility to another. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). While the sentencing court's recommendation is a factor in the BOP's decision to either designate the place of imprisonment or transfer the inmate to another facility, the agency's decision “is not reviewable by any court.” See id. Therefore, the Court denies Mr. Ahmed's request without prejudice to his pursuit of BOP administrative remedies.
The Court also does not have authority to resentence Mr. Ahmed under the current circumstances. A Court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except where permitted (1) under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (the “compassionate release” statute), (2) under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, or (3) in a case where the defendant has been sentenced based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, which is inapplicable here. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); see also United States v. Bernabal, 22 Fed.Appx. 37, 39 (2d Cir. 2001). Mr. Ahmed has previously filed a motion for compassionate release, which requires a showing that the defendant has exhausted administrative remedies prior to judicial review, and the Court ruled on that motion. (See Docket entry no. 545.) Mr. Ahmed does not style the present request as one for compassionate release under the statute, nor does he indicate that he has pursued his administrative remedies under the same. As for Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, under section (a), a court may correct a sentence only within 14 days and only when that sentence resulted from an arithmetical, technical, or other clear error. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 35(a). This rule is also inapplicable here as the allotted time frame has elapsed, and there is no indication, nor does Mr. Ahmed claim, that his sentence was the result of an enumerated error. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 35(a) Advisory Committee's Note (“[35(a)] is not intended to afford the court the opportunity to . . . simply change its mind about the appropriateness of the sentence.”)
The Court encourages Mr. Ahmed to discuss his request with his counselor and follow any BOP procedures for making such requests.
Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Ahmed.
SO ORDERED.