Opinion
CRIMINAL NO. 0:04-322-CMC
01-09-2012
United States of America, v. Antonio Hemphill, Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendant's motion seeking a reduction in his sentence due to his post conviction rehabilitative efforts. ECF No. 271 (filed Dec. 22, 2011). The Government has not responded to Defendant's motion.
Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a court to "correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error" within fourteen days after the oral announcement of the sentence. See Rules 35(a) and (c), Fed.R.Crim.P. The sentence was orally announced on March 14, 2005, and, accordingly, the deadline for any action by the court on a Rule 35(a) motion is well past. Therefore, the court is without jurisdiction to act upon Defendant's motion in this regard.
Apart from Rule 35(a), a district court has no jurisdiction to alter a defendant's term of imprisonment except as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3582 or 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
Title 18 United States Code § 3582(c) limits the court's authority to modify a final judgment that includes a sentence of imprisonment to three specific circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (the court can modify a judgment (1) upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") for statutorily-specified reasons, (2) upon motion of the government for substantial assistance, or (3) upon motion of the defendant or the BOP, or upon the court's own motion, because of a subsequent lowering of the applicable sentencing range.). None of these circumstances applies to Defendant.
After an appeal, the court can modify a sentence if the sentence is found by the appellate court to have been imposed in violation of law or imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines, as provided for in 18 U.S.C. § 3742. Defendant did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
Defendant's motion does not allege that any of these circumstances applies. The court lacks jurisdiction to modify Defendant's sentence, and therefore, Defendant's request, construed as a motion for reconsideration, is denied for lack of jurisdiction.
It is possible that Defendant is confused by the situation which would apply if the Government files a Rule 35(b) motion. The court frequently advised defendants that they will have the opportunity to present proof of rehabilitation at that point. Without such a motion, however, or one of the circumstances listed above, the court has no jurisdiction to reduce Defendant's sentence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina