Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01760/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01760-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: Modification of Imprisonment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07CV1760

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDRA MUNOZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07CV1760-LAB

[Related Case No. 06cr1195-LAB]

ORDER DENYING MOTION

[Dkt No. 1]

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, petitioner Sandra Munoz ("Munoz") has filed a Motion

To Reduce Sentence ("Motion"). She was convicted following her guilty plea to Count 3

(bringing in illegal aliens for financial gain and aiding and abetting) and to Count 15 (filing

false tax return) of the Indictment in criminal Case No. 06cr1195-LAB, with judgment entered

April 9, 2007, following proceedings before the undersigned District Judge. The court

imposed a custodial sentence of 21 months for each count, concurrent, and 3 years of

supervised release. Dkt Nos. 195, 193. Munoz now seeks a reduction of her prison

sentence to six-months in a halfway house, with the remainder of her time under house

arrest so she can care for her children.

Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3582, provides, in pertinent part

(emphasis added):

(c) Modification of an imposed term of imprisonment. -- the

court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has

been imposed except that --

Case 3:07-cv-01760-LAB Document 2 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Similarly, the other authority she cites is distinguishable. U.S. v. Ranum, 353 F.Supp.2d

984 (E.D. Wis. 2005) and U.S. v. Myers, 353 F.Supp.2d 1026 (S.D. Iowa 2005) are cases discussing

the trial court's determination of sentence in consideration of sentencing factors at the time of

sentencing, not post-judgment challenges to a term of imprisonment already imposed. 

- 2 - 07CV1760

(1) in any case --

(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of

Prisons, may reduce the term of imprisonment . . . if it finds

that --

(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant

such a reduction; or

(ii) the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has

served at least 30 years in prison, . . and a

determination has been made by the Director of

the Bureau of Prisons that the defendant is not a

danger to the safety of any other person or the

community. . . .;

(B) the court may 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; and 

(2) in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term

of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. . .

upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of

Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of

imprisonment. . . .

The court is prohibited by the express provisions of that code section from modifying

a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed unless one of the enumerated exceptions

applies. Munoz relies on U.S. v. Wyatt, 115 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 1997) in support of her

Motion.1 The Wyatt case was decided under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), when a defendant

moved to modify his sentence after it had been imposed on grounds the Sentencing

Guideline range under which he had been sentenced was retroactively amended. Munoz

makes no such Sentencing Guideline range claim with respect to her own sentence. 

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons has not brought a motion to reduce her term

of imprisonment, eliminating the exception codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

Relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) is similarly foreclosed. Rule 35 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for a reduction in sentence, in pertinent part, only

when the Government makes a motion for that purpose and demonstrates the defendant,

Case 3:07-cv-01760-LAB Document 2 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07CV1760

"after sentencing, provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another

person. . . ." Rule 25(b)(1)(A). The government has not so moved, and Munoz does not

claim to have provided any such assistance. The only statute Munoz identifies as

purportedly supportive of her motion is 18 U.S.C. § 3582 itself. As demonstrated above, no

exception to the finality of her sentence applies, and the court is foreclosed under the

express terms of that statute from modifying her sentence by motion.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Motion is DENIED, and the

Clerk of Court shall terminate this civil action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01760-LAB Document 2 Filed 09/17/07 Page 3 of 3