United States District Court, D. Idaho
LYNN WINMILL U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
before the Court are Defendant Charles Lynn Sacolick's
Motion to Modify and Release from Detention Order and
Supervised Release (Dkt. 56), Motion for Expedited Resolution
(Dkt. 59), and Notices of Inquiry and Motions for Status
Hearing (Dkts. 60 & 61). Each filing requests that the
Court modify Mr. Sacolick's 2004 sentence for violating
the conditions of his supervised release. Because the pending
motions provide no grounds for the Court to do so, it will
deny Mr. Sacolick's Motions.
U.S.C. § 3582(c) expressly limits the scope of a
district court's authority to reconsider a criminal
sentence. See United States v. Barragan-Mendoza, 174
F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 1999). Section 3582(c) provides
that a district court generally “may not modify a term
of imprisonment once it is imposed.” See United
States v. Tadio, 663 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011). In
essence, “there is simply no such thing as a motion to
reconsider an otherwise final sentence.” See United
States v. Knepper, No. 05-00191 JMS, 2016 WL 3264239, at
*2 (D. Haw. June14, 2016); see also United States v.
Swygert, No. 2:13-CR-00211-TLN, 2017 WL 431357, at *2
(E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017).
are only three exceptions to this general rule. First, a
defendant whose Guideline sentencing range has been lowered
by retroactive amendment may move for a sentence reduction if
the terms of Section 3582(c)(2) are met. Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. 817, 819-22 (2011). Second, the Court
may consider a motion for sentence modification filed by the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons. See §
3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Acevedo-Ramirez, No.
1:12-cr-000227 LJO, 2016 WL 6582591, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7,
2016). Third, the Court may entertain a request for
modification “to the extent otherwise expressly
permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure.” See § 3582(c)(1)(B);
Tadio, 663 F.3d at 1046. Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 35 provides two avenues for modification: (i) the
district court may, “[w]ithin 14 days after sentencing,
... correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical,
technical, or other clear error[, ]” or (ii)
“upon the government's motion” the district
court may reduce the sentence if the defendant provided
“substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting
another person.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a)-(b).
April 16, 2004 the Court sentenced Mr. Sacolick to six months
incarceration and 24 months supervised release for violating
the conditions of his supervised release. Dkt. 53. The Court
sentenced Mr. Sacolick based on his “admission that he
failed to pay the $155 co-payment of drug counseling and
testing services” in violation of the terms of his
supervised release. Id. The Court ordered the
six-month sentence to “run consecutive to the
defendant's conviction out of State Court, ” which
ended on October 23, 2018. Id.
Sacolick asks the Court to vacate his sentence “in the
interest of justice, and in the interest of reducing the
Federal prison population.” Dkt 56 at 7. He primarily
argues the Court's sentence is “excessive”
given the nature of his violation of supervised release.
Id. at 2-3. Alternatively, Mr. Sacolick asks the
Court to count his time spent in state custody for a separate
offense against his outstanding sentence for violating the
conditions of his federal supervised release. Id. at
4-7. Nowhere in Mr. Sacolick's Motions does he point to
any of the recognized exceptions in § 3582(c) that would
allow the Court to modify or vacate his sentence.
each of the exceptions briefly, Mr. Sacolick does not argue
that his term of imprisonment is based on a sentencing range
that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission. See § 3582(c)(2). With regard to
the second exception, the motion was not filed by the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons. See §
3582(c)(1)(A). Finally, Mr. Sacolick's motion does not
seek a sentence modification on any of the grounds permitted
by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
See § 3582(c)(1)(B). Mr. Sacolick missed the
14-day window provided by Rule 35 to point out an
“arithmetical, technical, or other clear error[,
]” and he has not provided “substantial
assistance in investigating or prosecuting another
person.” See Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 35 (a)-(b).
the Court does not have the power to review Mr.
Sacolick's sentence under § 3582(c). And, as the
United States points out, any attempt to re-cast
Mr.Sacolick's challenge to his 2004 sentence as a motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 would be time-barred.
See Dkt. 57 at 4. For the foregoing reasons, Mr.
Sacolick's Motions will be denied.
Defendant's Motion to Modify and Release from Detention
Order and Supervised Release (Dkt. 56) is DENIED.
Defendant's Motion for Expedited Resolution (Dkt. 59) and
Notices of Inquiry and Motions for Status Hearing ...