The opinion of the court was delivered by: William W. Caldwell United States District Judge
Defendant, Daren Wright, has filed a pro se motion for reduction of sentence. In November 1995, Wright pled guilty to operating a continuing criminal enterprise in connection with drug-trafficking. In April 1996, he was sentenced to 292 months' imprisonment, later reduced in April 1997 to 233 months.
In his current motion, Defendant asserts that under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a)(2)(A) and § 5G1.3, we should reduce his sentence to give him credit for time served on a 1988 New Jersey drug conviction.
We have no authority to grant the requested relief. Federal courts have no inherent authority to modify a sentence at any time. See McMillan v. United States, 257
F. App'x 477, 479 (3d Cir. 2007)(per curiam)(nonprecedential)("We note that, as a general matter, a court cannot modify a term of imprisonment after it has been imposed without specific authorization.")(citing United States v. DeLeo, 644 F.2d 300, 301 (3d Cir. 1981)); United States v. Penna, 319 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir. 2003). And Defendant points to no authority that would allow us to do so. See, e.g., United States v. Styer, 573 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 2009) (adjudicating a motion for reduction in sentence authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)).
We will therefore deny the motion.*fn1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL NO. 1:CR-95-140-02
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. : DAREN WRIGHT, Defendant
AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 2010, it is ordered that Defendant's motion (doc. 431) for reduction in sentence is denied.
/s/William W. Caldwell William W. Caldwell United ...