Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01067/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Santana
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

ALD-264 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1067

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

FRANCISCO SANTANA,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 4-95-00068-001)

District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann

____________________________________

Submitted for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

July 9, 2015

Before: CHAGARES, SCIRICA and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 21, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Francisco Santana, a federal inmate, appeals the denial of a post-conviction 

motion seeking a modification of a sentence imposed in 1995. We will affirm.

Case: 15-1067 Document: 003112023190 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2015
2

In 1990, Santana received a 50-year prison sentence in a drug-conspiracy case. In 

1995, Santana pleaded guilty to assaulting a correctional officer and possessing a 

prohibited object, and the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania imposed 

concurrent thirty-month sentences to run consecutively to the 1990 sentence. In 2014, 

Santana filed a motion asking the District Court to run his 1995 convictions concurrently 

with his 1990 sentence. Santana titled the motion: “Ex-Parte Motion[:] Special 

Reconsideration Petition for a Concurrent Sentence Versus Current Consecutive 

Sentence.” The District Court construed the pleading as a motion for reconsideration and 

denied the motion because Santana had not satisfied the grounds for reconsideration.

Santana appealed. On appeal, Santana argues the District Court misconstrued his 

motion and asserts that he was simply giving the District Court an opportunity to 

resentence him in light of changes in federal sentencing law and his post-sentencing 

rehabilitation.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude the District Court did 

not err in its decision to deny Santana relief. Neither this Court nor the District Court 

possesses a general authority to modify federal criminal sentences. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 

2255(a) (listing grounds to challenge a federal sentence). Moreover, regardless of how 

one might construe Santana’s motion, he has not presented this Court or the District 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-1067 Document: 003112023190 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2015
3

Court with a basis to grant him relief. Santana remains free to pursue other available 

avenues of redress.

Accordingly, as there is no substantial question presented by this appeal, we will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. 

Case: 15-1067 Document: 003112023190 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2015