United States District Court, D. Kansas, Kansas City Division.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s letter (Doc. #66), which the Court construes as a motion for placement in a residential release center. In considering placements in residential release centers, the Bureau of Prisons considers a number of factors, including any statement by the sentencing court concerning the purposes of the sentence of incarceration and any recommendation by the sentencing court regarding the type of penal or correctional facility. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4). At sentencing, defendant did not ask for any recommendation regarding placement in a residential re-entry center during the final months of his sentence, and the Court did not specifically address the issue. Defendant effectively seeks to have his sentence amended to include such a recommendation.
A federal district court may modify a defendant’s sentence only where Congress has expressly authorized it to do so. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); United States v. Blackwell, 81 F.3d 945, 947 (10th Cir. 1996). Congress has set forth three limited circumstances in which a court may modify a sentence: (1) upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons in extraordinary circumstances or where defendant has reached 70 years of age and has served at least 30 years in prison; (2) when “expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35;” and (3) when defendant has been sentenced “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), (2); see Blackwell, 81 F.3d at 947-48. None of these exceptions apply here. Moreover, Rules 35 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly do not authorize a substantive modification of defendant’s sentence at this time. See Blackwell, 81 F.3d at 947-48; Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 (authorizes resentencing to reflect defendant’s substantial assistance on motion of the government and to correct arithmetical, technical or other clear error within 14 days of sentencing); Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 (authorizes court to correct clerical-type errors). Finally, the Court does not have inherent authority to resentence defendant. See Blackwell, 81 F.3d at 949. For these reasons, the Court does not have jurisdiction to amend defendant’s sentence at this time to include a specific recommendation on placement in a residential re-entry facility.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s letter (Doc. #66) filed June 11, 2015, which the Court construes as a motion to request placement in a residential ...