Opinion
Case No. 1:09-CR-000299-LJO
07-27-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JESUS REYES LOPEZ, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (Doc. 198)
The instant matter stems from the Court's Order (Doc. 197), rendered July 6, 2015, granting Defendant Jesus Reyes Lopez's Motion to Reduce Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Alleging legal error, the Government presently asks the Court to reconsider the term of imprisonment imposed. See Doc. 198.
A court generally may not correct or modify a prison sentence once it has been imposed. See, e.g., United States v. Aguilar-Reyes, 653 F.3d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, a court may reconsider and correct a clerical mistake, "but [the rule] may not be used to correct judicial errors in sentencing." United States v. Penna, 319 F.3d 509, 513 (9th Cir. 2003). Otherwise, "Rule 35 is generally the only vehicle available for resentencing, unless the case is on remand from the Court of Appeals." See United States v. Hovsepian, 307 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2002); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (a court may modify such a sentence only "to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."); see Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) states: "Within 14 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error." The district court lacks jurisdiction to modify a sentence if it does not act within the 14 day period set forth in Rule 35(a). See United States v. JDT, 762 F.3d 984, 1006 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Aguilar-Reyes, 653 F.3d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 2011); Penna, 319 F.3d at 512 (If a district court does not correct a sentence within the period proscribed by Rule 35, the court "loses its jurisdiction to modify the sentence.") (emphasis in original)).
Here, clerical error is not implicated. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. The Court finds that it imposed Defendant's new term of imprisonment on July 6, 2015, and more than fourteen days have since elapsed. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. The Government does not otherwise cite to a statutory basis for jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to reconsider the sentence and therefore does not reach the merits of the motion. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government's motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 27 , 2015
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE