A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd t he appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has * det er m i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f

t h i s a p p e a l
. S e e F e d
. R. Ap p . P
. 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 t h Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is O r derand J udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel
. T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R
. 36. 3. W e GRANT Le i d e r ’ s mo t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n fo r ma p a u p e r i s . S e e 2 8 U. S
. C. 1 § 1915; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. Pr i ce, 438 F. 3d 1005, 1007 ( 10th C i r . ) ( gr ant i ng appel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o appea l i n for m a paupe r i s fr om deni al of 18 U
. S. C
. § 3582 m o tio n ), c e rt . d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S . C t. 2 3 6 5 (2 0 0 6 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### N ove m b e r2,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. RI CHARD J OSE P H LE I DER, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 4079 ( D
. C
. N o. 2: 04- C R
- 594- PG C ; 2: 05-

CV- 1 0 2 4
- P GC) ( D
. U t ah)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.
D efe ndant
- A ppel l antR i char d J os eph Lei derappea l s fr om t he di s t r i ct
c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h i s mo t i o n t o mo d i f yh i s s e n t e n c e u n d e r1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 8 2
. W e A F F I R M.

1S e c tio n 1 3 4 4 p ro v id e s th a t 2 [w ] hoeverknow i ngl yexec ut es , orat t empt s t o exec ut e, a s cheme or ar t i fi ce– ( 1) t o defr aud a f

i nanci al i ns t i tut i on; or (2) t o o btai n a n y of the m on ey s, fun ds, credi t s, asset s, s ec u r i t i e s , o r o t h e r p r o p e r t y o wne d b y , o r u n d e r t he cus t odyorcontr ol of, a fi nanci al i ns t i tut i on, bym eans of fal se or fr aud ulentpret enses, repr esent at i on s, or prom i ses;
s hal l be fi ned no more t hat $ 1, 000, 000 ori m pr i s oned notm or e than 30 y ear s , orbot h. - 2 - Le i d e rp l e d g u i l t yt o s e v e n c o u n t s o f b a n k f r a u d , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S
. C. 1344. T he i ndi ct m entt o w hi ch Lei derpl ed gui l t yal l eged ge ner al l yt hat , fr om

2 1994 t hr ough 2002, L ei der“deve l oped and e xecut ed a s cheme t o defr aud” thr ee banks : U
. S. B ank, K eyB ank, and Zi ons B ank. T he I ndi ct m entfur t heral l eged:

2. A s par tof the s cheme t o defr aud, [Lei der ] opened ba nk acc ount s i n names nothi s ow n t hr ough t he us e of fal s e i dent i fi cat i on d o c u m e n ts . 3. A s fur t herpar tof the s cheme, [Lei der ] m ade f r audul ent depos i t s t o t hos e ac count s t hr ough t he us e of c hecks dr aw n on n o n e x is te n t a c c o u n ts o r a c c o u n ts w ith in s u ffic ie n t f u n d s . 4
. In e x ec u ti o n o f th e sc h em e, [L eide r], k n o w ing that there w er e i ns uffi ci entfunds i n t he ac count s he had ope ned, m ade w i t hd raw al s fr om t ho se accou nts byt he fraud ulentuse of check s, bank w i t hdr aw al s , aut om at i c t el l erm achi nes and debi tcar ds , caus i ng a l oss t o the ban ks i n the foll ow i ng am ou nts : U
. S. B ank - $20, 528 K eyB ank - $21, 401 Z i ons B ank - $24, 845T he B O P di d noti ni t i al l ycr edi tL ei der ’ s fede r al s ent ence w i t h t hi s per i od 3 of s t at e i m pr i s onm ent . I n hi s § 3582 m ot i on, t her efor e, L ei deras s er t ed thatt he B O P w a s ru n n in g h is fe d e ra l se n ten c e c o n se c u tiv e lyra th e r th a n c o n c u rre n tlyw ith hi s s t at e s ent ence . T he di s t r i ctcour t , i n ot herw i s e deny i ng L ei der ’ s § 3582 m ot i on, di d not e thatt he B O P had i ncorr ect l ycal cul at ed Lei der ’ s fede r al s ent ence fr om A ugus t2, 2005, t he dat e he w as t r ans ferr ed i nt o fede r al cus t ody , r athert han fr om A pr i l 5, 2005, t he dat e the di s t r i ctcour ti m pos ed the fe der al s ent ence . T he di s t r i ctcour tr eques t ed thatt he B O P change thi s t o r efl ectt hathi s fede r al se n ten c e b e g a n to ru n f ro m th e d a te it w a s im p o se d , A p ril 5 , 2 0 0 5 . In th is m anner , t hen, t he fe der al s ent ence r an conc ur r ent l yw i t h t he s t at e s ent ence , b e g in n in g o n th e d a te th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p o s e d th e fe d e ra l s e n te n c e . - 3 - A t se n ten c in g , alth o u g h th e d istric t co u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e a p p lica b le gui del i ne r ange w as t hi r t yt o t hi r t y - s even mont hs , t he courti ns t ead i m pos ed the t w enty - four
- m ont h s ent ence t o w hi ch the part i es s t i pul at ed as par tof the pl ea agr eement . T he di s t r i ctcour ti m pos ed thi s s ent ence on A pr i l 5, 2005 and furt her
or der ed thi s fede r al s ent ence t o run concurr ent l yw i t h a one- y ears t at e s ent ence t hatL ei derw as al r eadys ervi ng att hatt i m e. T he mi s demeanorconvi ct i on
u n d e rly in g th a t sta te s e n ten c e w a s fo r p a ss in g a b a d c h e c k in o rd e r to o b tain $2, 439. 66 unl aw ful l yfr om Z i ons B ank i n J ul y2002, dur i ng t he s ame t i m e that L e id e r a d m itte d e x e c u tin g th e b a n k f ra u d s c h e m e . L ei derdi d notfi l e a di r ectappea l
. A ft ercompl et i ng hi s s t at e s ent ence , L ei derw as t r ans ferr ed t o fede r al cus t odyi n A ugus t2005. T her e, B ur eau of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) offi ci al s cal cul at ed hi s r el eas e dat e, cr edi t i ng hi s fede r al
s ent ence w i t h t he t i m e Lei derhad s er ved i n s t at e cus t odyaft ert he i m pos i t i on of hi s fede r al s ent ence . W hen Lei derr eal i zed the B O P w as notcr edi t i ng hi s fede r al 3
s ent ence fort he t i m e he s erved i n s t at e pr i s on befor e hi s fede r al s ent enci ng,L e id e r sp e c ifica llyrejec ted th e d istric t co u rt’s a ttem p t to c o n stru e h is 4 § 3 5 8 2 m o tio n a s o n e m a d e in s te a d u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5
. B eca us e the di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d L ei deri n A pr i l 2005, t he 2004 5 se n ten c in g G u id e lin e s, e ffe c tiv e in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 4 , ap p lyu n les s d o in g so w o u ld r es ul ti n an ex pos tfac t o vi ol at i on. See U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 11( a) , ( pr ovi di ng t hat gener al l ydi s t r i ctcour tm us tus e gui del i nes i n effecton dat e of s ent enci ng) , ( b) ( 1) (p ro v id in g th a t if a p p ly in g th e g u id e lin e s in e ffe c t at th e tim e o f se n ten c in g w o u ld r es ul ti n an ex pos tfac t o vi ol at i on, t hen the di s t r i ctcour ts houl d appl yt he g u id e lin e s in e ffe c t at th e tim e th e d e fe n d a n t co m m itt e d th e c rim e fo r w h ich h e is bei ng s ent ence d)
. L ei derhas notas s er t ed, and w e ca nnotconcl ude, t hatappl y i ng t he 2004 gui del i nes i n t hi s cas e w oul d r es ul ti n anyex pos tfac t o vi ol at i on. W e, th e re fo re , a p p ly th e 2 0 0 4 G u id e lin e s . T hatver s i on of § 5G 1. 3 pr ovi ded: ( a) I f the i ns t antoffe ns e w as comm i t t ed w h il e the defendantw as s er vi ng a t erm of i m pr i s onm ent( i ncl u d ing w or k r el eas e, fur l ough, or es cape s t atus ) oraft ers ent enci n g for , butbefor e comm enci ng s er vi ce o f, s u c h ter m o f im p riso n m e n t, th e se n ten c e fo r th e in sta n t o ffe n se sh a ll be i mpo s e d t o ru n c o n s e c u t i v e l y t o t h e u n d i s c h a r g e d t e r m of im p ri s o n m e n t. ( b) I f s ubs ect ion (a) does notappl y , and a t er m of i m pr i s onm ent r es ul t ed fr om anotheroffe ns e thati s r el evantconductt o t he i ns t ant o ffe n s e o f co n v ict ion u n d er the p rov isi o n s o f su b sec ti o n (a)(1), ( a)(2 ), o r ( a ) ( 3 ) o f § 1 B1. 3 ( Re l e v a n t Con d u c t ) a n d t h a t was t h e b a s i s for an i n c r e a s e i n t h e o ffe n s e l e v e l fo rt h e i n s t a n to ffe n s e u n d e rCh a p t e rT wo ( O ffe ns e C onduct ) orC hapt erT hr ee ( A dj us t m ent s ) , t he sent ence fort he i nst ant offense shall be im po sed as foll ow s: ( 1) t he courts hal l adjust t he s ent ence foranyper i od of im p ri s onm ental r eadys er ved on the undi s char ged t er m of i m pr i s onm ent i f the courtdet er m i nes t hats uch per i od of i m pr i s onm entw i l l notb e credi t ed t o t he fe der al s ent ence byt he B ur eau of

Pr i s ons ; and (2 ) th e se n ten c e fo r th e in sta n t o ffe n se sh a ll b e im p o se d to (c o n tin u e d ...) - 4 - L e id e r filed a 1 8 U .S .C
. § 3 5 8 2 m o tio n a sk in g th e d istric t co u rt to m o d if yh is 4
s ent ence . I n t hat§ 3582 m ot i on, L ei deras s er t ed thatU
. S. S. G
. § 5G 1. 3( b) 5(
. . . cont i nued) 5 run co n cu rren tl yto th e rem aind er of the u n d isch arg ed term o f im p riso n m e n t. (c) (P o li cyS tat em en t) In a n yo ther c ase inv o lving an u n d isch arg ed term of i m pr i s onm ent , t he s ent ence for t he i ns t antoffe ns e maybe i m pos ed t o run concurr ent l y , par t i al l y concurr ent l y , orcons ecut i vel yt o t he pr i or undi s char ged t erm of i m pr i s onm ent t o achi eve a r eas onabl e puni s hm ent fort he i ns t antoffe ns e. - 5 - r e q u i r e d t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc r e d i ta g a i n s th i s fe d e r a l s e n t e n c e t h e e n t i r e t i me he s er ved on hi s s t at e convi ct i on. T h e d istri ct co u rtd en ied th at m o ti o n . R ev iew ing the d istri ct co u rt ’s d ec isi o n d e n o v o , see U n it ed S tat es v . S m artt , 1 2 9 F
. 3 d 5 3 9 , 5 4 0 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ),
we a ffi r m.

“ A d istric t co u rt d o e s n o t h a v e in h e re n t au th o rityto m o d if ya p re v io u sly i m p o s e d s e n t e n c e . ” I d
. R a t h e r , “ [ a ] d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s a u t h o r i z e d t o m o d i f y a d e fe n d a n t’s s e n ten c e o n lyin sp e c ified in sta n c e s w h e re C o n g re ss h a s e x p re ss ly gr ant ed the courtj ur i s di ct i on t o do s o. ” Pr i ce, 438 F. 3d at1007 ( quot at i on,
a ltera tio n o m itt e d ); se e a lso S m a rtt, 1 2 9 F .3 d a t 5 4 1 ; U n ited S tate s v . B lac k w e ll, 8 1 F .3 d 9 4 5 , 9 4 7 -4 8 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). I n t hi s cas e, L ei ders peci fi cal l yi nvoked 18 U
. S. C
. § 3582( c) ( 2)
. B utt hat
s t atut or ypr ovi s i on perm i t s a di s t r i ctcour tt o m odi fya s ent ence onl yw hen “ the defe ndant
. . . has been s ent ence d t o a t er m of i m pr i s onm entbas ed on a
s ent enci ng r ange thathas s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 994( o)
. ” See a l s o U ni t ed St at es v.E v en if t h ere w as a n am en d m en t th at l o w ere d the g u idelines that w ere 6 appl i cabl e t o L ei der , he w oul d s t i l l notbe ent i t l ed t o a s ent ence m odi fi cat i on under§ 3582( c) ( 2) beca us e the di s t r i ctcour ti n t hi s cas e di d notappl yt he gui del i nes t o cal cul at e Lei der ’ s s ent ence ; t he di s t r i ctcour ti ns t ead i m pos ed the s ent ence t o w hi ch Lei derand the G overnm enthad s t i pul at ed i n t he pl ea a g re e m e n t. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . T ruje q u e , 1 0 0 F .3 d 8 6 9 , 8 7 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). - 6 - H err er a- G ar ci a, 422 F. 3d 1202, 1203 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C h av ez -S alais, 3 3 7 F
. 3 d 1 1 7 0 , 1 1 7 3 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). A n d L eide r do es n o t assert t hatt hati s t he ca s e her e. 6 L ei deral s o i nvoked § 3582 gene r al l y . Sect i on 3582( c) ( 1) ( A ) per m i t s t he di s t r i ctcour tt o m odi fya s ent ence i f the B O P’ s D i r ect orm oves fora s ent ence
r educt i on due t o “extr aor di naryand compel l i ng r eas ons ” ori f the i nm at e, among ot hert hi ngs , “i s atl eas t70 y ear s of age , has s er ved 30 y ear s i n pr i s on” and the B O P D i r ect orhas det erm i ned that“the defendanti s nota dange rt o t he s afe t yof anyot herper s on ort he comm uni t y . ” See a l s o Sm ar t t , 129 F. 3d at541. A gai n, th a t is n o t th e c a s e h e re . S e e id
. L as t l y , § 3582( c) ( 1) ( B ) pr ovi des t hata di s t r i ct“courtm aym odi fyan i m pos ed t er m of i m pr i s onm entt o t he ext entot herw i s e expr es s l yper m i t t ed by st atute orbyR ule 35 of t he F ederal R ules of C ri m i nal Procedu re. ” S ee al so S m a rtt, 1 2 9 F .3 d a t 5 4 1 . B u t L e id e r d o e s n o t as se rt “ th a t an yo f th e re q u isite
c o n d iti o n s fo r R u le 3 5 re lief a re p re se n t.” Id . N o r d o e s it a p p e a r th a t h e c o u ld
m ake s uch an a s s er t i on undert he fa ct s of thi s cas e. R ul e 35( a) per m i t s a di s t r i ct
cour t , “[w ] i t hi n 7 day s aft ers ent enci ng, ” t o “corr ecta s ent ence t hatr es ul t ed fr omR u le 3 6 , F e d . R . C rim . P ., w o u ld a lso p e rm it th e d istric t co u rt to c o rre c t a 7 s e n te n c e fo r c le ri c a l e rr o r. B u t L e id e r d o e s n o t a lle g e a c le ri c a l e rr o r. - 7 - ar i t hm et i cal , t echni cal , or ot her cl ear err or . ” B utL ei deras s er t ed hi s § 3582 7
m o tio n w e ll af

ter th a t se v e n -d a ytim e f ra m e . (R . d o c . 1 .) A n d R u le 3 5 (b ) p e rm its t he di s t r i ctcour tt o r educe a defendant ’ s s ent ence i n l i ghtof “s ubs t ant i al
as s i s t ance ” the i nm at e pr ovi ded t o t he G overnm ent . L ei der ’ s al l egat i ons do not im p li ca te t h at pro v isi o n , eit h er. For t hes e r eas ons , § 3582 does notappl yt o L ei der ’ s ci r cumst ance s . W e, there fo re, A F F IR M the d istri ct co u rt ’s de cisi o n d ec li n ing to m o d ifyL eide r’s
s ent ence under§ 3582. See H err er a- G ar ci a, 422 F. 3d at1203; U ni t ed St at es v. T o rr e s -A q u in o , 3 3 4 F .3 d 9 3 9 , 9 4 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

D avi d M
. E bel C i r cui tJ udge