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 of America v. Talon Deante Jackson

January 11, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
TALON DEANTE JACKSON, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stephan P. Mickle Senior United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CORRECT OR REDUCE SENTENCE

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant's January 3, 2012 Request to the Clerk (doc. 54) which has been treated as a motion to correct or reduce Defendant's federal sentence to make it run concurrently with Defendant's state sentence. The motion will be denied because a consecutive sentence is appropriate in this case. Furthermore, there is no jurisdiction to change the sentence.

Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prescribes two circumstances under which a court may correct or reduce a sentence. Under subsection "a," the court may correct a sentence for clear error within 14 days of imposition. Defendant's motion is untimely under subsection "a" because more than 14 days have passed since imposition of sentence. Regardless, the provision "is not intended to afford the court the opportunity to reconsider the application or interpretation of the sentencing guidelines or for the court to simply change its mind about the appropriateness of the sentence." Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 advisory committee's notes (1991). In this case, the Court specifically ordered Defendant's federal sentence to run consecutively to the sentences imposed in Alachua County, Florida case number 01-2007-CF-4962 and 4963. Therefore, a sentence reduction or correction is not available to Defendant under subsection "a."

Under subsection "b," the court may reduce a sentence upon the government's filing of a substantial assistance motion. No substantial assistance motion has been filed in this case. Thus the Court does not have jurisdiction to reduce Defendant's sentence. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's motion for correction or reduction of sentence (doc. 54) is denied for lack of jurisdiction.

Stephan P. Mickle

20120111

© 1992-2012 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.