From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ramirez

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Feb 11, 2022
18cr2278-CAB (S.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2022)

Opinion

18cr2278-CAB

02-11-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JESSE RAMIREZ, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE [Doc. No. 669]

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge

On February 10, 2022, defendant Jesse Ramirez, pro se, filed a Motion for a Reduction in Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i). [Doc. No. 669.]

Under 18 U.S.C § 3582(c), a court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except upon motion of the Director of the BOP, or upon motion of the defendant. Before filing such a motion on his own, the defendant must first petition the BOP to file such a motion on his behalf. A court may grant the defendant's own motion for a modification in sentence only if the motion was filed “after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the BOP to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf” or after 30 days have passed “from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Proper exhaustion is a prerequisite to the defendant initiating the motion for sentence reduction. The statute requires defendant exhaust administrative remedies or wait 30 days before moving in court for a sentence reduction. Section 3582(c) states that a court may not modify a term of imprisonment except when these conditions are met. There is no statutory exception excusing the exhaustion requirement. Before the court may even consider whether the defendant's circumstances are extraordinary and compelling to justify a sentence reduction, the defendant must first demonstrate he has met the criteria for bringing his motion to the court.

The defendant states that his “efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies have been fruitless, ” and that he “applied for release to home confinement, via the Administrative Remedy Program and was denied at all levels.” [Doc. No. 669 at 4.] However, defendant does not include in his motion any specific evidence that he submitted a request for a sentence modification to the warden at the facility in which he is detained. Therefore, at this time, he has not met the exhaustion requirements.

Accordingly, the motion to reduce sentence is DENIED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Ramirez

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Feb 11, 2022
18cr2278-CAB (S.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2022)
Case details for

United States v. Ramirez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JESSE RAMIREZ, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Feb 11, 2022

Citations

18cr2278-CAB (S.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2022)