IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 12-00243-KD-B

)

RODERICK LEVAR JONES, )

Defendant )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Roderick Jones’ “Motion for Consolidation 

of State and Federal Sentence, and to be Remanded Over to Federal Custody, pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3584(a) and Rule 26.12 of Alabama and Federal Rule(s) of Criminal Procedure.” (Doc. 

51). Upon consideration, the motion is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 

On December 12, 2012, Jones pled guilty to Count 1 of the Superseding Information in 

this action, which charged an offense of being an accessory after the fact to kidnapping in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3. (Docs. 24, 27). On April 29, 2013, the Court sentenced Jones to 87 

months in prison, followed by a 3 year term of supervised release. (Doc. 47). At sentencing, the 

Court and the parties noted that Jones was in federal custody pursuant to a writ from the state of 

Alabama. After sentencing, Jones was returned to state custody where he was later sentenced on 

state charges. 

Jones’ motion notes that he is currently serving a 40 year sentence imposed by the state 

of Alabama. (Doc. 51 at 1-2). In his motion, Jones requests that this Court enter an order 

permitting him to begin his federal sentence immediately, which would require his transfer to a 

federal facility. Specifically, Jones explains that he is “only seeking to be remanded over to 

federal custody to start his current federal sentence.” (Doc. 51 at 1). 

Case 1:12-cr-00243-KD-B Document 52 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Jones states that “there is an order by the United States District Court that he may start 

his federal sentences, and that his federal and state sentence was to be run concurrent and to be 

retroactive.” (Doc. 51 at 3). The Court has reviewed the record in this case and there is no such 

order.1 The judgment stated, “The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United 

States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of EIGHTY-SEVEN (87) months, as 

to Count 1.” (Doc. 47 at 2). 

As grounds for his motion, Jones cites 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), which states: 

If multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant at the same time, or 

if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an 

undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or 

consecutively, except that the terms may not run consecutively for an attempt and 

for another offense that was the sole objective of the attempt. Multiple terms of 

imprisonment imposed at the same time run concurrently unless the court orders 

or the statute mandates that the terms are to run consecutively. Multiple terms of 

imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court 

orders that the terms are to run concurrently.

18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). (emphasis added). 

Jones’ terms of imprisonment (a state term and a federal term) were imposed at different 

times. In September 2012, Jones was arrested on unrelated state charges and parole violation. In 

November 2012, he came into federal custody on a writ. Jones was sentenced on April 29, 2013. 

At the time of Jones’ federal sentencing, he had not yet received a state sentence pertaining to his 

September 2012 charges and violation.2 The Judgment does not specify that the federal sentence 

is to be run concurrent with the state sentence. Therefore, Jones’ federal sentence is to be run 

consecutive to his state sentence(s). It would be up to the sentencing state court judge whether to 

 1 Jones also cites to Doc. 49 at 4, which is a “PB Form 106” in which a hearing officer “recommend[s] that Mr. 

Jones be allowed to start his federal sentence to free up bed space at the state level.” Jones has incorrectly identified 

this document as an order from the U.S. District Court. 2 Jones was previously sentenced to a 40 year term of imprisonment on a state conviction for robbery in the first 

degree. He was paroled on December 21, 2009 but arrested for a parole violation on September 5, 2012. He has

been in custody since that arrest. He notes that he is now serving the remainder of the 40 year sentence and that there 

is a federal hold on him to begin serving his federal sentence after he is released from state custody in 2040. (Doc. 

51 at 2-3). 

Case 1:12-cr-00243-KD-B Document 52 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 3
3

run the state sentence concurrent with the federal sentence.3 This Court lacks jurisdiction to 

make adjustments to a state imposed sentence.

Further, to the extent Jones seeks the Court to modify his federal sentence, the Court’s 

ability to do so is limited. Generally, a district court may not modify a term of imprisonment 

once imposed.” United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 2005). Under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c), a court can only modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment in three situations: (1) 

upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for the reasons specified in 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(A); (2) to the extent permitted by statute or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35; 

or (3) when the Sentencing Commission has reduced the guideline range for the defendant's 

offense and made the reduction retroactive. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). None of these special 

circumstances are present. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to modify Jones’ 

federal sentence of imprisonment.

Accordingly, Jones’ motion to modify either his state and/or federal sentences is 

DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. Jones’ request for a hearing is also DENIED. The Clerk is 

directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Defendant. 

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of May 2016.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 3 At Jones’ federal sentencing hearing, this Court made reference to the state court’s ability to make this 

determination. 

Case 1:12-cr-00243-KD-B Document 52 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 3