United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pleading guilty to wire fraud and false statement in a tax
return, Defendant Kenneth Voboril was sentenced to 63
months' imprisonment on February 8, 2016. On December 20,
2017, the Court denied Defendant's pro se
post-judgment Motion to Amend Presentence Report requesting
the presentence investigation report (“PSR”) be
amended to reflect his history of alcohol abuse in order to
facilitate his entry into the Residential Drug Abuse Program
(“RDAP”) while incarcerated.
matter is now before the Court on Defendant's pro
se letter dated May 4, 2018, requesting the Court make a
recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
that he be placed in RDAP (Doc. 28). 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 RDAP placement. As explained below,
Defendant's motion is denied.
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
RDAP placement. The Court previously made its recommendations
at sentencing based on Defendant's circumstances.
Defendant offers mitigating circumstances for the Court's
consideration-that he did not reveal his alcohol abuse issue
to Probation, his desire to set a good example for his
children, his near-completion of an Associate degree in
Business Administration, and volunteer work tutoring other
inmates. While the Court commends Defendant for his progress,
these factors do not warrant a supplemental recommendation to
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 RDAP placement. In fact, the Probation Office has
confirmed that Defendant completed a non-residential
substance abuse program while incarcerated in August 2016,
and that he is not precluded from participating in other
non-residential substance abuse programs.
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 to amend or supplement the Court's
recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons regarding RDAP
placement (Doc. 28) is denied.
IS SO ORDERED.