United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
STEPHEN P. FRIOT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Justin Todd Haynes, has moved, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c), to modify his sentence, relying upon Rule 35 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Doc. no.
Upon review, the court finds that no response from the
government is required. The court concludes that it lacks
jurisdiction to modify defendant's sentence.
courts generally lack jurisdiction to modify a term of
imprisonment once it has been imposed.” United
States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275, 1277 (10th
Cir. 2013) (citing Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.
817, 819 (2010)). “‘[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.'”
United States v. Baker, 769 F.3d 1196, 1198
(10th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v.
Price, 438 F.3d 1005, 1007 (10th Cir. 2006)).
expressly granted district courts limited jurisdiction to
modify sentences in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).”
Baker, 769 F.3d at 1198. Section 3582(c)(1)(B)
permits the district court to “modify an imposed term
of imprisonment to the extent otherwise expressly permitted
by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). “Like
§ 3582(c), Rule 35's requirements are
jurisdictional.” Baker, 769 F.3d at 1198.
35(a) permits the court “within 14 days after
sentencing” to correct a sentence “that resulted
from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.”
Rule 35(a), Fed. R. Crim. P. Defendant's sentence was
imposed more than 14 days from the filing of his motion.
35(b)(1) permits the court to reduce a sentence “[u]pon
the government's motion made within one year of
sentencing.” Rule 35(b)(1), Fed. R. Crim. P. Under
limited circumstances, Rule 35(b)(2) extends authority to
modify a sentence beyond the one-year time period. However,
again, the court may reduce a sentence under Rule 35(b)(2)
only “[u]pon the government's motion.” Rule
35(b)(2), Fed. R. Crim. P. In this case, the government has
not filed any motion on defendant's behalf.
defendant's motion does not fall within the jurisdiction
that Rule 35 provides the court for reducing a sentence and
does not fall within any of the other jurisdictional grants
in section 3582(c) for modifying a sentence, the court
concludes that it has no jurisdiction to modify
defendant's sentence. Defendant's motion therefore
must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
the motion of defendant, Justin Todd Haynes, to modify his
sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), based upon
Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
 On October 2, 2012, the court
sentenced defendant to 180 months' imprisonment for
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Doc. no. 38. The
sentence reflected an enhancement for being an armed career
criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e), and United States Sentencing Guidelines §
4B1.4. Judgment was entered the next day, October 3, 2012.
Doc. no. 39.
 The court notes that defendant
previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, arguing he
was entitled to relief from his sentence based on the Supreme
Court's decision in Johnson v. United States,
135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The motion was dismissed by the court
as time-barred on October 23, 2017. Doc. nos. 48 and 49. In
July of 2018, defendant filed a motion with the Tenth Circuit
for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255
motion based upon the Supreme Court's decision in
Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018). The Tenth
Circuit denied that motion because defendant had not shown
that Dimaya was made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court. Doc. no. 51.
Defendant recently filed another motion for authorization to
file a second or successive § 2255 motion based upon the
Supreme Court's decision in United ...