United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
MYERSCOUGH, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Rebecca M. Champley, proceeding pro se, has filed a Motion
for Reconsideration of Sentence (d/e 153) in light of her
rehabilitation efforts since sentencing. Because this Court
lacks jurisdiction over the request, the Motion is DISMISSED.
March 3, 2006, Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 846 and 841(a)(1) as alleged in Count 1 of the
Indictment (d/e 1). On July 10, 2006, the Court sentenced
Defendant to 168 months' imprisonment to be followed by
five years of supervised release. See Sentencing
Opinion (d/e 56). On July 19, 2006, Defendant's sentence
was adjusted to account for the time Defendant was
incarcerated for her conviction in Christian County,
Illinois, Circuit Court No. 04-CF-11, because her conduct in
that case was part of the conduct that made up the offense in
this Court. See July 19, 2006 Text Order. Defendant
was sentenced to 164 months' imprisonment. See
Amended Judgment (d/e 63). On July 3, 2007, the Government
filed a Motion for Reduction of Sentence (d/e 94). On August
13, 2007, following a hearing, the Court granted the Motion
and sentenced Defendant to 132 months' imprisonment.
See August 13, 2007 Minute Entry. On September 13,
2014, Defendant filed a Motion for Sentence Reduction (d/e
105), asking the Court to review the Bureau of Prison's
decision not to award a sentence reduction pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). The Court dismissed the motion
for lack of jurisdiction.
October 6, 2015, the Court reduced Defendant's
imprisonment sentence from 132 months to time served
effective November 1, 2015 (approximately 127 months) in
light of the retroactive application of Amendment 782 to the
United States Sentencing Guidelines. Finally, on November 1,
2017, Defendant's supervised release term was revoked for
violations of her conditions of supervised release. The Court
sentenced Defendant on revocation to 18 months imprisonment
and one year of supervised release.
Motion, Defendant seeks a sentence reduction to reflect the
rehabilitation she has achieved since her revocation
sentencing. Attached to the Motion are records of
Defendant's education activities in prison, including the
courses she has participated in, test scores, and
certification of completion of her GED or high school
diploma. Also attached are records of Defendant's work
history while in prison. Finally, Defendant attached several
certificates of completion that she earned while in prison
for completion of several programs: Drug Abuse Education
Course, Trauma in Life Pre-Requisite Workshop, and several
chapel classes-one certificate for Walk Through the Bible and
two certificates for Walking the 12 Steps with Jesus Christ.
district court has “limited power to revisit sentences
once they are imposed.” United States v.
Goode, 342 F.3d 741, 743 (7th Cir. 2003). Rule 35 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure sets forth two
circumstances in which a district court may change a
sentence. Rule 35(a) establishes that a court may correct a
sentence within 14 days of sentencing for an arithmetical,
technical, or other clear error. Rule 35(b) allows a district
court to reduce a sentence for the defendant's
substantial assistance to the Government in investigating or
prosecuting another person.
3582(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code also provides a
district court authority to modify a previously-imposed term
of imprisonment. First, the court can adjust the prison term
where (1) the defendant was sentenced “to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,
” and (2) “such a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). If the
defendant cannot satisfy the first criterion, the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to consider the reduction
request. United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 588
(7th Cir. 2009).
a court may resentence a defendant if the Bureau of Prisons
moves for a sentence reduction because of extraordinary and
compelling reasons or because the defendant is at least 70
years old, has served at least 30 years of his imprisonment
term, and is not dangerous. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
case, Defendant is not seeking a resentencing for clear error
or substantial assistance. Further, Defendant is not seeking
a reduction pursuant to a reduced Guideline range. Defendant
is instead asking this Court to review her sentence in light
of her rehabilitation efforts since sentencing. Therefore,
this Court has no authority under Rule 35 or § 3582(c)
to reduce Defendant's sentence.
Court also notes that the citations on which Defendant relies
do not support a basis for the Motion. The Motion purports to
be brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). However,
§ 3742 applies only to appellate courts reviewing
sentences. It does not authorize the district court to review
its previously-imposed sentence, as Defendant requests here.
Nor do the cited cases provide such authority. In Pepper
v. United States, the Supreme Court held that once a
defendant's sentence has been set aside on appeal, a
district court at resentencing may consider evidence of the
defendant's post-sentencing rehabilitation, which may
support a downward variance from the Guideline range. 562
U.S. 476, 481 (2011). The case does not provide a basis for a
district court to reconsider a sentence that has not been set
aside by an appellate court and remanded for resentencing. In
Gall v. United States, the Supreme Court found that
it was proper for the district court to consider the
defendant's post-offense rehabilitation in determining
the proper sentence. 552 U.S. 38, 59 (2007). The case
provides a basis for a district court to consider the
defendant's rehabilitation from the time that the
defendant was charged up to sentencing. The case does not
provide support for a district court's ability to
re-sentence based on rehabilitation (from, as
Defendant requests here, the time of sentencing).
reasons stated, Defendant's Motion for Sentence Reduction
(d/e 153) is DISMISSED for lack ...