Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Randall

September 13, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JEFFREY RANDALL



The opinion of the court was delivered by: James L. Graham United States District Judge

ORDER

On July 21, 2005, the above defendant was sentenced to a term of incarceration following his plea of guilty to one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(5)(B). The court has received a letter from the defendant dated September 6, 2006, in which he requests a reduction in his sentence to time served or probation with home confinement. The court will address defendant's letter as a motion, and the clerk is directed to file the letter on the docket.

Under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §3582(c), a court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except where the Bureau of Prisons has requested the modification based upon extraordinary circumstances, where modification is permitted by statute or by Fed.R.Crim.P. 35, or where the guideline sentencing range for the offense of conviction has been retroactively lowered. The only statutory exceptions modifying the general rule are found in 28 U.S.C. §2255, which permits resentencing if relief is granted under that section, and 28 U.S.C. §2106, which permits resentencing upon remand from a court of appeals or the Supreme Court. United States v. Ross, 245 F.3d 577, 586 (6th Cir. 2001). This court has no inherent power outside these provisions to modify a term of imprisonment. Id. (citing United States v. Barragan-Mendoza, 174 F.3d 1024, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 1999). Since the exceptions in §3582(c), §2106 and §2255 do not apply in this case, this court has no authority to modify or reconsider defendant's sentence. Even if the court had such authority, the court would not reduce the sentence previously imposed.

Defendant's motion for reduction of sentence is denied.

20060913

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.