Opinion
Criminal No. 98-455-01
June 20, 2002
Order
AND NOW, this day of June 2002, upon careful review of defendant's motion for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Doc. No. 89), the government's response thereto (Doc. No. 90), the defendant's reply (Doc. No. 92), and both parties' briefs in response to my concern that I did not have jurisdiction (Doc. Nos. 94 and 95), IT IS ORDERED that defendant Omar Mustafa's motion for modification of his sentence is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Defendant Omar Mustafa filed a pro se motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argued that, because his crime of money laundering should be recharacterized as bank fraud, he should be sentenced to a lesser term under the sentencing guidelines. For this proposition he cited Amendment 591 to the Sentencing Guidelines and the Third Circuit case of U.S. v. Smith, 186 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 1990). Doc. No. 89. Although I evaluate Mustafa's arguments more leniently as a pro se plaintiff than had his motion been prepared by more experienced hands, I expressed concern in my previous order that I do not have jurisdiction to hear his case. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520 [ 404 U.S. 519], 520-21 (1972) (announcing a more lenient standard for pro se motions); U.S. v. Mustafa, Crim. No. 98-455-01 (order dated May 8, 2002) [hereinafter U.S. v. Mustafa Order, Doc. No. 93]; 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) empowers federal judges to "reduce [a defendant's] term of imprisonment" when the applicable sentencing guideline range has been lowered. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). As I explained in my previous order, however, Amendment 591 did not lower Mustafa's sentencing range. U.S. v. Mustafa Order, Doc. No. 93. Indeed, by disavowing the Smith case, the amended guideline actually prevents courts in this circuit in future cases from conducting the type of analysis that Mustafa advocates, effectively increasing the amount of time to be served. Id. Accordingly, I ordered both parties to brief the issue of whether I had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to entertain Mustafa's motion. Id.
Neither party, however, submitted a brief addressing the question I posed. Doc. Nos. 94 and 95. Accordingly, from my own review of the statute and caselaw, I conclude that, because Amendment 591 would not reduce Mustafa's sentence, I do not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is explicit in granting federal courts jurisdiction to hear only cases in which the guideline amendment reduces the term of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The caselaw also supports this obvious reading of the statute. See, e.g., U.S. v. Tally, 920 F. Supp. 597 (M.D.Pa. 1996) (holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) did not apply to a case in which a defendant sentenced to 51 months of incarceration moved for a modification of his sentence that would have extended his sentence to between 63 and 78 months of incarceration); see also generally U.S. v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that a federal court may not employ 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) where a prisoner sentenced to 20 years before a change in the guidelines would still receive a sentence of 20 years after the change in the guidelines).
For the reasons above, I find that I do not have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to hear Mustafa's motion to modify his sentence, and therefore dismiss the motion.