Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    United States v. Coleman, 10th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a defendant's appeal of the denial of his motion to modify his sentence. The order summarizes that the defendant was convicted in 1992 of armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. In 2005, he filed a second motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) to modify his sentence, which the district court denied for lack of jurisdiction. The appeals court affirms the denial, finding that the district court only has authority to modify a sentence under specific circumstances outlined in § 3582(c), none of which apply in this case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Coleman, 10th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    36 views4 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a defendant's appeal of the denial of his motion to modify his sentence. The order summarizes that the defendant was convicted in 1992 of armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. In 2005, he filed a second motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) to modify his sentence, which the district court denied for lack of jurisdiction. The appeals court affirms the denial, finding that the district court only has authority to modify a sentence under specific circumstances outlined in § 3582(c), none of which apply in this case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-12-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-5105

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a defendant's appeal of the denial of his motion to modify his sentence. The order summarizes that the defendant was convicted in 1992 of armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. In 2005, he filed a second motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) to modify his sentence, which the district court denied for lack of jurisdiction. The appeals court affirms the denial, finding that the district court only has authority to modify a sentence under specific circumstances outlined in § 3582(c), none of which apply in this case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    36 views4 pages

    United States v. Coleman, 10th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a defendant's appeal of the denial of his motion to modify his sentence. The order summarizes that the defendant was convicted in 1992 of armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. In 2005, he filed a second motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) to modify his sentence, which the district court denied for lack of jurisdiction. The appeals court affirms the denial, finding that the district court only has authority to modify a sentence under specific circumstances outlined in § 3582(c), none of which apply in this case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    TENTH CIRCUIT

    December 28, 2005


    Clerk of Court

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.

    No. 05-5105
    (D.C. No. 91-CR-158-HDC)

    JERRY CRAIG COLEMAN,

    (N.D. Oklahoma)

    Defendant - Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before EBEL, McKAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously to honor the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore submitted without
    oral argument.
    In 1992, Defendant was convicted of armed bank robbery, in violation of
    18 U.S.C. 2113(a) and (d), and of using a firearm during a crime of violence, in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). He was then sentenced to 322 months

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    *

    imprisonment for the two crimes.


    In 2001, contending that the court engaged in double counting by enhancing
    his armed robbery sentence for both the use of a firearm and the threat of
    death, Defendant moved to modify a term of his imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
    3582(c). The district court denied Defendants motion, and Defendant did not
    appeal that denial. Then, in 2005, Defendant filed a second motion to modify his
    sentence under 3582(c), which the district court denied for lack of jurisdiction.
    He now appeals the district courts denial of that motion.
    We review de novo the district courts interpretation of a statute or the
    sentencing guidelines. United States v. Acosta-Olivas, 71 F.3d 375, 377 (10th
    Cir. 1995). We [also] review de novo the district courts legal determination
    that it possessed jurisdiction to modify Defendants sentence. United States v.
    Blackwell, 81 F.3d 945, 947 (10th Cir. 1996). A district court does not have
    inherent authority to modify a previously imposed sentence; it may do so only
    pursuant to statutory authorization. United States v. Mendoza, 118 F.3d 707, 709
    (10th Cir. 1997).
    Under 3582, a district court may only modify a sentence in three specific
    circumstances:
    (1) It receives a motion from the Bureau of Prisons finding that special
    circumstances warrant a reduction and the requested reduction is consistent with
    the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission;
    -2-

    (2) to the extent expressly permitted by statute or by Fed. R. Crim. P. 35; or


    (3) a defendant has been sentenced based upon a sentencing range later
    lowered by the Sentencing Commission.
    18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(2); see United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 540 (10th
    Cir. 1997).
    Defendant argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced under the
    United States Sentencing Guidelines for making an express threat of death
    because he was also convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c). But Defendants
    argument that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence on Count I to a
    total offense level of twenty-four is irrelevant. Defendants total offense level
    was set at a thirty-four because of his status as a career criminal offender under
    U.S.S.G. 4B1.1. Although the presentence report initially calculated
    Defendants offense level at twenty-four for Count I by adding two levels for use
    of an express threat of death, that enhancement became moot and was not used
    once it was determined that the career offender provision of U.S.S.G. 4B1.1
    applied. Because the basis for Defendants motion does not fall within one of the
    specific categories for relief authorized by 3582(c), the district court was
    correct in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Defendants motion.
    We therefore AFFIRM the district courts dismissal of Defendants motion under
    3582(c) for a sentence reduction.
    Entered for the Court
    -3-

    Monroe G. McKay
    Circuit Judge

    -4-

    You might also like