Opinion
22-6027
07-19-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WYLEMA WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
D.C. No. 5:19-CR-00004-F-6 (W.D. Okla.)
Before MATHESON, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. [**]
ORDER AND JUDGMENT [*]
PAUL J. KELLY, JR. CIRCUIT JUDGE
Defendant-Appellant Wylema Wilson, a federal inmate appearing pro se, filed an "Emergency Motion for Reconsideration 18 U.S.C. Section 3742(e) Post-Sentencing Rehabilitation Programming" requesting that the district court reduce her sentence based on post-sentencing rehabilitation. See Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011). The district court denied that request for lack of jurisdiction, and also determined that to the extent that Ms. Wilson sought reconsideration of an earlier order denying a sentence reduction, such a request was untimely. See United States v. Wilson, No. CR-19-0004-006, 2022 WL 319839, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 2, 2022). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Background
Ms. Wilson pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and received the mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months' imprisonment. The district court varied downward from the guideline range of 151 to 188 months because Ms. Wilson suffered from significant health problems. Ms. Wilson subsequently filed two motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), which the district court denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In August 2021, the district court denied Ms. Wilson's third motion for compassionate release on the merits. Ms. Wilson did not appeal the district court's decisions on her motions for compassionate release. Instead, in January 2022, she filed an "Emergency Motion for Reconsideration 18 U.S.C. Section 3742(e) Post-Sentencing Rehabilitation Programming."
Discussion
This court reviews the district court's jurisdiction to reduce a sentence de novo, United States v. Burris, 29 F.4th 1232, 1235 (10th Cir. 2022), and its ruling on a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Warren, 22 F.4th 917, 927 (10th Cir. 2022). Additionally, although we will construe pro se filings liberally, Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011), this court "will not review an issue in the absence of reasoned arguments advanced by the appellant as to the grounds for its appeal." Burlington N. &Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Grant, 505 F.3d 1013, 1031 (10th Cir. 2007). Ms. Wilson fails to challenge the grounds of the district court's determinations in her appellate briefs. See Aplt. Br. at 4-8; Aplt. Supp. Br. at 2-10. Thus, she has waived this court's review of both issues.
Regardless, the district court was correct in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider post-sentencing rehabilitation under § 3742 in the absence of a remand by this court "pursuant to subsection (f)(1) or (f)(2)." 18 U.S.C. § 3742(g); see also Pepper, 562 U.S. at 490. We also agree with the district court's alternative holding that to the extent the motion was construed as a motion for reconsideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the motion was untimely. Motions to reconsider under § 3582 must be "filed within the time to appeal the order that is the subject of reconsideration." Warren, 22 F.4th at 926. A defendant has 14 days after a final judgment or order to file a notice of appeal. United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238, 1240-41 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)). Here, the district court issued its order in August 2021, but Ms. Wilson did not file her motion until January 2022.
Even if timely, a motion to reconsider would be unavailing. A motion to reconsider may be granted when there is "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Warren, 22 F.4th at 927 (quoting United States v. Christy, 739 F.3d 534, 539 (10th Cir. 2014)). However, "such motions 'should not be used to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised earlier.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Huff, 782 F.3d 1221, 1224 (10th Cir. 2015)). Ms. Wilson's health issues were considered by the district court when she was originally sentenced, her post-conviction rehabilitation efforts, see R. 113, 117, are not grounds for relief under § 3582, and she does not argue that the district court clearly erred or that new law or evidence compels a different conclusion.
AFFIRMED. Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
[*] This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
[**] After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.