United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
December 19, 2016, Defendant Valerie Greenlee pleaded guilty
to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A),
and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On September 12, 2017, this
Court sentenced Defendant to 34 months'
imprisonment. At Defendant's request, the Court
recommended she be considered for designation to a facility
as close as possible to the Kansas City area to facilitate
family visits; and that she be considered for participation
in the Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”)
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 nine-to-twelve-month placement in a
residential re-entry center (“RRC”) at the
conclusion of her sentence currently set for April 2020 (Doc.
274). 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 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
RRC placement. The Court previously made its recommendations
at sentencing based on Defendant's circumstances.
Defendant offers mitigating circumstances for the Court's
consideration-she has a two-year old granddaughter with major
health issues who is in the custody of Child Protective
Services, she would like to obtain custody of the child, she
has been taking classes while incarcerated, and she hopes to
earn a degree in counseling upon her release. While the Court
commends Defendant for her desire to raise her granddaughter,
her participation in these programs, and her career goals
upon release, 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. 274) is denied.
IS SO ORDERED.
Docs. 124, 125.