Opinion
12-cr-00066-SI-1
09-07-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TODD TONNOCHY, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO AMEND JUDGMENT
RE: DKT. NO. 108
SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On July 16, 2021, defendant Todd Tonnochy filed a Request to Amend Judgment. Dkt. No. 108. On July 26, 2021, the government filed an opposition. Dkt. No. 109. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES defendant's Request to Amend Judgment.
BACKGROUND
On June 22, 2021, defendant pled to five charged violations of supervised release: (1) failing to reside at approved residence, (2) failing to participate in drug treatment, (3) failing to participate in mental health treatment, (4) committing a new law violation, and (5) traveling out of district without permission. Dkt. Nos. 95; 107 at 1. On July 6, 2021, the Court sentenced defendant to “22 months custody to commence upon imposition of sentence; the sentence is to run concurrent to the state sentence imposed in the state of Nevada.” Dkt. No. 107 at 2.
On July 16, 2021, defendant filed a Request to Amend Judgment. Dkt. No. 108. On July 26, 2021, the government filed an opposition. Dkt. No. 109.
LEGAL STANDARD
Generally, the Court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except . . . . to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, “[w]ithin 14 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a).
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues the Court intended to sentence defendant to a total term of seven months custody, crediting defendant's time in state custody, and requests the Court amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). The government opposes defendant's request and argues the Court intended to sentence defendant to 22 months custody. Dkt. No. 109 at 1-2.
The parties do not dispute the timeliness of defendant's request.
The Court finds amendment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) is not warranted. The Court did not intend to sentence defendant to seven months custody. The Court intended to sentence defendant to “22 months of custody to commence upon imposition of sentence; the sentence is to run concurrent to the state sentence imposed in the state of Nevada.” Dkt. No. 107 at 2. At the time of this Court's federal sentencing, the Nevada sentence had not yet been completed and the Court intended its 22 month sentence to be concurrent with the expiration of the balance of the Nevada sentence.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant's Request to Amend Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.