United States v. Gonzales

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. MAURO GONZALES DEFENDANT

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION

Date published: Apr 13, 2021

No. 2:13-CR-20032 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 13, 2021)

Opinion

No. 2:13-CR-20032

04-13-2021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. MAURO GONZALES DEFENDANT

P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Mauro Gonzales's motion (Doc. 63) to reduce sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). The Government filed a response (Doc. 64) in opposition and the Defendant filed a reply (Doc. 65). The motion will be denied.

18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) allows a defendant to file a notice of appeal in the district court for review of an otherwise final sentence if the sentence

(1) was imposed in violation of law;
(2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentence guidelines;
(3) is greater than the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range . . .; or
(4) was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable.

However, a district court does not have authority under § 3742 to review a final sentence. United States v. Auman, 8 F.3d 1268, 1270-71 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Carter, Criminal File No. 3-95-48, 2006 WL 1662998, at *1 (D. Minn. June 15, 2006). Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Defendant's § 3742(a) motion.

Further, even if the Court construes Defendant's motion as a § 2255 motion, the motion would be denied. Defendant has previously filed a § 2255 motion and has not received appropriate certification from the circuit court, therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain Defendant's subsequent § 2255 motion. Boykin v. United States, 242 F.3d 373, 2000 WL 1610732, at *1 (8th Cir. 2000).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of April, 2021.

/s/_________

P.K. HOLMES, III

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE