Opinion
05-20073-JWL
04-18-2023
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Norman Shaw, Jr., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Hon. John W. Lungstrum United States District Judge
On November 8, 2022, the court revoked defendant's supervised release after finding defendant in violation of the terms of his supervised release. The court sentenced defendant to twenty-one months imprisonment and one year of supervised release. This matter is now before the court on defendant's pro se motion “for intervening change in law” (doc. 227). In the motion, defendant asks the court to “vacate” the 2002 Missouri drug conviction used to enhance his sentence from a Grade C violation to a Grade B violation, to reclassify his unlawful-use violation as a Grade C violation, and to resentence him to a substantially lower sentence. The motion is dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.
A federal court may modify a defendant's sentence only where Congress has expressly authorized it to do so. United States v. Gay, 771 F.3d 681, 686 (10th Cir. 2014). Congress has set forth three limited circumstances in which a court may modify a sentence: (1) upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons in extraordinary circumstances or where defendant has reached 70 years of age and has served at least 30 years in prison; (2) when “expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35;” and (3) when defendant has been sentenced “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), (2). The defendant has not shown that any of these exceptions apply here.
In sum, because the defendant has not shown a basis for the court's jurisdiction, the court must dismiss his motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant's motion for intervening change in law (doc. 227) is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.