From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bouckhout v. U.S.

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Sep 22, 2000
No. 99-3391-KHV, 98-200560KHV (D. Kan. Sep. 22, 2000)

Opinion

No. 99-3391-KHV, 98-200560KHV

September 22, 2000


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion to alter his sentence (Doc. #45) filed August 14, 2000. After carefully considering defendant's brief and pertinent portions of the record, the Court overrules the motion.

Factual Background

On December 14, 1998, the Court sentenced defendant to 41 months imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and restitution in the amount of $10,246,126.60. Defendant now asks the Court to reduce his sentence.

Analysis

The Court does not have authority to adjust defendant's sentence. A federal district court may modify a defendant's sentence only where Congress has expressly authorized it to do so. See United States v. Blackwell, 81 F.3d 945, 947 (10th Cir. 1996); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). 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 certain 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); see Blackwell, 81 F.3d at 947-48. Defendant pleads extraordinary circumstances as a rationale for early release. This motion must be made by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, however, not by an inmate. United States v. Gore, 933 F. Supp. 1018, 1019 (D.Kan. 1996).

Defendant has not cited any other statute which authorizes the Court to modify his sentence. Moreover, Rules 35 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly do not authorize a substantive modification of defendant's sentence at this time. See id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 (authorizes resentencing (a) to correct illegal sentence on remand from a court of appeals, (b) to reflect defendant's substantial assistance on motion of the government, and (c) to correct arithmetical, technical, or other clear error within seven days of sentencing); Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 (authorizes court to correct clerical-type errors). Finally, the Court does not have inherent authority to resentence defendant. See Blackwell, 81 F.3d at 949. For these reasons, the Court does not have jurisdiction to reduce defendant's sentence at this time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion to alter his sentence (Doc. #45) filed August 14, 2000, be and hereby is OVERRULED.

The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this order to defendant, defendant's counsel, the office of the United States Attorney, the United States Probation Office and the Regional Director of the Bureau of Prisons.


Summaries of

Bouckhout v. U.S.

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Sep 22, 2000
No. 99-3391-KHV, 98-200560KHV (D. Kan. Sep. 22, 2000)
Case details for

Bouckhout v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT E. BOUCKHOUT, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Sep 22, 2000

Citations

No. 99-3391-KHV, 98-200560KHV (D. Kan. Sep. 22, 2000)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. McCann

However, for the court to consider a request for modification based on such circumstances, the motion must be…