United Statesv.Chang

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADONov 4, 2015
Criminal Case No. 12-cr-00243-PAB-10 (D. Colo. Nov. 4, 2015)

Criminal Case No. 12-cr-00243-PAB-10

11-04-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 10. CARLOS MARTIN SEGURA CHANG, Defendant.


ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Early Release [Docket No. 680], wherein Mr. Segura Chang requests that the Court reduce his 27 month sentence of imprisonment by three months. Defendant was convicted of Count 42 of the Superseding Indictment, charging violations of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) and (d)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

"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). Defendant claims that the Court "has statutory authority to modify a previously imposed sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, in certain circumstances." Docket No. 680 at 2. "Under [18 U.S.C.] § 3582, a district court may only modify a sentence in three specific circumstances: (1) the court 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) to the extent expressly permitted by statute or by Fed. R. Crim. P. 35; or a defendant has been sentenced based upon a sentencing range later lowered by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 540 (10th Cir.1997). The defendant does not identify any of these circumstances as ones that apply to him. The fact that some co-defendants had their sentences reduced pursuant to changes in the guideline range for offenses inapplicable to Mr. Segura Chang does not provide a statutory basis for the Court to reduce his sentence. Given that Mr. Segura Chang fails to identify any authority to modify his sentence, it is

ORDERED that the Motion for Early Release [Docket No. 680] is denied. It is further

ORDERED that the Motion for Early Release [Docket No. 679], which appears to be a duplicate filing in which the exhibits were omitted, is denied as moot.

DATED November 4, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer


PHILIP A. BRIMMER


United States District Judge