Opinion
Criminal No. 98-128-01.
January 5, 2005
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of January, 2005, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 68), it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
On October 21, 2004, this Court denied Defendant's Pro Se Motion for Clarification of Sentence on the ground that Defendant failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. See Docket No. 71. In this Motion for Reconsideration Defendant states that he "seeks clarification by this Court of the Court's intent during the `oral' pronouncement of his sentence." Asserting that the Bureau of Prisons "does not have jurisdiction to interpret the oral pronouncement of this Court specifically, when such pronouncement is ambiguous," Defendant requests that this Court clarify the intent of the Judgment and Commitment Order issued by the late U.S. District Judge Robert S. Gawthrop, III on February 16, 1999.
As stated in this Court's previous Order, before the Defendant can file a suit to challenge any aspect of his prison conditions, the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Defendant to exhaust available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Bureau of Prisons has established an administrative remedy procedure through which inmates can seek formal review of any complaint regarding any aspect of his imprisonment. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.10, et seq. Defendant in this case has not exhausted this available administrative remedy. Therefore the motion to reconsider is denied.