Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

United States v. Wallace

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 31, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff,
v.
TERESA WALLACE aka TERESA FATKIN, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge.

The Court has before it a motion to reduce sentence filed by defendant Teresa Wallace. Wallace pled guilty to charges of conspiring to distribute Oxycontin and making false statements to obtain Oxycontin. She was sentenced to nine years of imprisonment, and is due to be released in September of 2014.

Wallace seeks a reduced sentence on the ground that her mother has liver cancer and does not have long to live. In the alternative, she asks the Court to order the Bureau of Prisons to grant her furloughs or visiting opportunities with her mother. The Government opposes the motion.

A court generally may not correct or modify a sentence of imprisonment once it has been imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). 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 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). 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." This 14-day deadline is jurisdictional, "thus divesting the district court of the power to amend the sentence after fourteen days." U.S. v. Penna, 319 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir.2003).

Wallace's motion does not seek to correct an "arithmetical, technical, or other clear error, " and is well-beyond the 14-day jurisdictional deadline. Hence the motion must be denied.

Wallace is advised that the Court could only consider a sentence reduction if the Bureau of Prisons were to determine that extraordinary and compelling reasons warranted a sentence reduction and filed a motion to that effect under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

ORDER

In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to reduce sentence (docket no. 80) is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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