Opinion
1:00-CR-12-HAB
07-18-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GEMIRA L. CARTER
OPINION AND ORDER
HOLLY A. BRADY, JUDGE
Defendant was sentenced by this Court in July 2000 to a term of thirty-three months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Upon his release from the BOP, his supervision was transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan. Defendant got into more trouble in Michigan and is now serving a twenty-five-to-fifty-year sentence for Car Jacking, Armed Robbery, and Kidnapping.
In March of this year, Defendant sent a letter to the Court asking, “if there's anything to be done to modify or suspend the violation/warrant sentence?” (ECF No. 40 at 1). Candidly, the Court doesn't know what he means. It looks like a warrant was issued for Defendant's arrest for violating his supervised release-presumably due to the new charges-but that warrant was withdrawn. (ECF No. 48-1 at 3). As far as the Court can tell, then, there is no violation sentence to be modified. But whatever Defendant wants done, this is not the Court to do it.
If Defendant is seeking a modification of any part of his initial sentence, that request must be made to the Eastern District of Michigan. This Court no longer has jurisdiction to enter such an order. See United States v. Jordan, Case No. 03-CR-40053-JPG, 2023 WL 317660, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2023) (finding that, upon transfer of supervision, all jurisdiction is vested in the transferee court). If he is seeking modification of his state court sentence via § 2254, that motion must be made in the district where he is incarcerated or where he was convicted and sentenced. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). None of those courts is this one.
This Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Defendant any relief. His request (ECF No. 40) is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.