U.S. v. REDD

Case No. 6:15-cr-119-Orl-37KRS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. LASHUNDA VENEICE REDD.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Vincent Chiu , US Attorney's Office.


ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the following:

1. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration 18 U.S.C. 3742(e) Post-Sentencing Rehabilitation Programming (Doc. 44), filed January 9, 2017; and 2. Government's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 46), filed January 19, 2017.

Upon consideration, the Court finds that the motion is due to be denied.

On June 23, 2015, Lashunda Redd ("Defendant") pled guilty to multiple federal offenses. (Doc. 23.) Thereafter, the Court sentenced Defendant to fifty-four months' imprisonment. (Doc. 33.) Defendant, now acting pro se, moves the Court to reduce her sentence on the basis of post-conviction rehabilitation. (Doc. 44.) In support of her motion, Defendant relies primarily on 18 U.S.C. 3742(e) and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011). The Government opposes the motion, arguing that Defendant provides no legal basis for a sentence reduction. (Doc. 46.) The Court agrees.

As an initial matter, Defendant improperly relies on 18 U.S.C. 3742(e) to support her motion. Section 3742(e) does not grant the Court authority to reduce a defendant's sentence. Section 3742(e) simply sets forth a basis for a court of appeals to review a sentence imposed by a district court. Therefore, Section 3742(e) fails to provide a basis for this Court to reduce Defendant's sentence.

Defendant's reliance on Pepper is also misplaced. In Pepper, the Supreme Court held that "when a defendant's sentence has been set aside on appeal and his case remanded for resentencing, a district court may consider evidence of a defendant's rehabilitation since his prior sentencing and that such evidence may, in appropriate cases, support a downward variance from the advisory Guidelines range." Pepper, 562 U.S. at 491. Thus, "while rehabilitation may be a ground the court can consider if it is in the midst of sentencing or resentencing, rehabilitation is not a justification for the court to resentence the defendant in the first place." United States v. Edmondson, 799 F.Supp.2d 1297, 1299 (M.D. Ala. 2011). Because Defendant has already been sentenced and has not appealed her sentence, Pepper is inapplicable here.

Indeed, the Court may only modify Defendant's term of imprisonment: (1) upon motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons under limited circumstances; (2) where "expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure"; or (3) if a sentencing range has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). Defendant raises no arguments that implicate any of these three exceptions.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration 18 U.S.C. 3742(e) Post-Sentencing Rehabilitation Programming (Doc. 44) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases