Opinion
2:03-cr-00010-LRH-PAL
04-24-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH COPPOLA, Defendant.
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LARRY R. HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MINUTE ORDER
LARRYK HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Defendant Joseph Coppola (“Coppola”) has filed an ex parte motion to correct a sentence (ECF No. 381) and also a sealed duplicate copy (ECF No. 382). For the reasons articulated here, the Court denies the motion.
On March 29, 2004, Coppola was convicted by jury of two counts of bank robbery (ECF No. 105) and was sentenced to 188 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release. On January 18, 2018, Coppola commenced his term of supervision. On January 26, 2021, Coppola's probation officer petitioned this Court for a warrant, recommending that Coppola's term of supervision be revoked because he violated the following conditions of his supervision: (1) do not commit another crime, (2) do not leave the district, (3) report any law enforcement contact, (4) do not possess any weapons, and (5) do not gamble (ECF No. 340). The warrant was issued (ECF No. 341) and an initial appearance regarding Coppola's revocation was held on August 22, 2022, which was then continued to August 29, 2022. Coppola was remanded to custody pending his revocation hearing. Coppola was appointed counsel (ECF No. 349) and after six stipulations to continue, waived his preliminary hearing. Coppola's revocation hearing was held on April 11, 2023, where he was sentenced to 10 months to be served with no supervised release to follow.
Coppola moves this Court to correct his sentence, “as the sentence imposed was already surpassed in Pre-revocation custody that is required by the above statute to be credited as a ‘time served' sentence.” (ECF No. 381, 3:23-25). However, “[a]fter a district court sentences a federal offender, the Attorney General, through the [Bureau of Prisons], has the responsibility for administering the sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a) (‘A person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment ... shall be committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons until the expiration of the term imposed').” United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992). Thus, questions concerning the execution of a sentence should be presented to the Bureau of Prisons.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Coppola's ex parte motion to correct a sentence is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ex parte motion (ECF No. 381) and the sealed duplicate copy (ECF No. 382) shall be UNSEALED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be UNSEALED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.