Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-CV-01696 MMB.
June 23, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Presently before this court is a Motion for Modification of Term of Imprisonment, filed pro se. Ronald Goode, ("Petitioner"), a federal prisoner, is incarcerated at FCI Schuykill in Minersville, PA. Petitioner is seeking a modification of his sentence based on arguments of personal hardship and pledges of good behavior. See "Motion for Modification of Term of Imprisonment," at 3-4. On June 9, 2004, the Honorable Michael M. Baylson referred this matter to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For reasons that follow, this motion should be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The facts in this background and procedural history were obtained from Petitioner's criminal docket, the instant motion, and his indictment in criminal matter 02-828.
On or about December 20, 2002, Petitioner was indicted for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. The charges arose from his conduct as the leader of an organization which distributed crack cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, within 1000 feet of an elementary school, in violation of Title 21, U.S.C, §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A).
Following a guilty plea on July 2, 2003, Petitioner was sentenced to a period of incarceration of one hundred sixty-two (162) months, to be followed by five (5) years of supervised release. A $1000 fine was further imposed on Petitioner.
On April 15, 2004, Petitioner, pro se, filed a "Motion for Modification of Term of Imprisonment." Petitioner's claim for a reduction of his sentence is based largely on arguments of personal hardship and assurances of good behavior both since his incarceration and following his release if granted.
Thereafter, on May 13, 2004, Petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to set aside or revise his sentence. That motion is still pending before the Honorable Michael M. Baylson, the trial judge. On June 15, 2004, Judge Baylson granted the Government an extension of time until July 19, 2004 to file its response.
II. DISCUSSION
In essence, Petitioner is asking this court to reduce or commute his sentence. He is, however, simultaneously seeking identical relief from the District Court under a separate, pending motion. Until the District Court has ruled, this court will not know whether Petitioner's sentence will be affirmed as proper or modified. The demands of both justice and judicial economy require that this court refuse to address this matter until the fate of Petitioner's § 2255 motion has been determined by Judge Baylson. See Eg., United States v. Zats, No. CR. A. 97-590-01, 2001 WL 1327619, at *3 (E.D.Pa., 2001). The trial court's ruling may well eliminate the necessity for the instant, duplicate motion. Furthermore, sentencing determinations are more appropriately addressed initially to the court that set the penalty. Consequently, to rule on Petitioner's request for a reduced sentence under such attendant circumstances, in the judgment of this court, would be premature. See Eg., Id. Accordingly, I make the following:
Petitioner neither pleads nor proves entitlement to federal habeas relief. Even if a § 2255 motion were not pending in the District Court, this court nonetheless would dismiss Petitioner's Motion for failing: a) to conform to any existing habeas corpus legislation; b) to allege any constitutional grounds for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and c) to allege any new facts, discovered evidence, or a new rule of constitutional law as described under the "savings clause" in § 2255 and § 2244. Moreover, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), a federal prisoner may only collaterally attack a sentence that is unconstitutional or otherwise flawed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
RECOMMENDATION
AND NOW, this 23rd day of June, 2004, for reasons contained in the preceding report, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's "Motion for Modification of Term of Imprisonment" be DENIED without a hearing.