United States
v.
Dunn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISIONSep 11, 2015
NO. 5:11-CR-274-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Sep. 11, 2015)

NO. 5:11-CR-274-FL-1

09-11-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DARNELL MICHAEL DUNN, Defendant.


ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant's motion for reconsideration of the court's August 12, 2015, order reducing defendant's sentence, entered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), and U.S.S.G. Amendment 782. For the reasons that follow defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied.

COURT'S DISCUSSION

Defendant moves for reconsideration of an order amending his sentence, entered under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). "The law closely guards the finality of criminal sentences against judicial change of heart." United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). A district court "may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed," 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b), "unless the Bureau of Prisons moves for a reduction, the Sentencing Commission amends the applicable Guidelines range, or another statute or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 expressly permits the court to do so." Goodwyn, 596 F.3d at 235; 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Defendant now asks the court to reconsider its judgment. Defendant's motion, however, cannot be read as one to correct a technical error. See Fed. R. Crim. P 35(a). Further, defendant's argument goes far beyond contentions that the court's 120-month sentence was clear error, where he asks the court to reconsider his sentence in light of his post-sentencing good conduct. Therefore, the court is without jurisdiction to entertain the motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this the 11th day of September, 2015.

/s/_________


LOUISE W. FLANAGAN


United States District Judge