United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
October 30, 2012, Defendant Jamaica Chism pleaded guilty to
one count of Accessory After the Fact in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C). On October 7, 2014, this Court
sentenced Defendant to 84 months' imprisonment per the
binding Plea Agreement. At Defendant's request, the Court
recommended she participate in a drug treatment program while
matter is now before the Court on Defendant's pro
se Motion for Recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”), requesting the Court make a
recommendation to include the Second Chance Act so that
Defendant can receive a six-to-nine-month placement in a
residential re-entry center (“RRC”) at the
conclusion of her sentence currently set for 2020 (Doc. 838).
The Court construes this as a motion to amend the judgment
or, in the alternative, for a supplemental recommendation by
the Court made outside of the judgment concerning RRC
placement. As explained below, Defendant's motion
the Court has no authority or basis to amend the judgment.
“A district court does not have inherent authority to
modify a previously imposed sentence; it may do so only
pursuant to statutory authorization.” As the Tenth
A district court is authorized to modify a Defendant's
sentence only in specified instances where Congress has
expressly granted the court jurisdiction to do so. Section
3582(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code provides three
avenues through which the court may “modify a term of
imprisonment once it has been imposed.” A court may
modify a sentence: (1) in certain circumstances “upon
motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons”, (2)
“to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute
or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure”, or (3) “upon motion of the defendant
or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, ” or on the
court's own motion in cases where the applicable
sentencing range “has subsequently been lowered by the
defendant's argument does not fit within one of these
three limited avenues under § 3582(c), the Court is
without jurisdiction to consider the request. None of the
avenues set forth above apply to this case.
the Court declines to exercise its discretion to make a
supplemental recommendation outside the judgment concerning
RRC placement. The Court previously made its recommendations
at sentencing based on Defendant's circumstances.
Defendant offers mitigating circumstances for the Court's
consideration-earning her GED and completion of numerous
courses, including firefighter training, Microsoft word,
Spanish, and parenting and wellness classes. While the Court
commends Defendant for her participation in these programs,
these factors do not warrant a supplemental recommendation to
the BOP. Even if the Court were inclined to make
the requested recommendation, however, it would not be
binding on the BOP,  which has its own policies that will
identify whether Defendant is eligible for RRC
placement. Accordingly, the Court does not have the
authority to amend or supplement its recommendation to the
BOP as requested, and Defendant's motion must be denied.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that
Defendant's Motion for Recommendation to the Bureau of
Prisons (Doc. 106) is denied.
IS SO ORDERED.
Id., Doc. 653.