unreasonable, to have been imposed in violation of law, or to have been imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). Second, a court may reduce a sentence after the imposition of the sentence, on motion of the government, if the defendant subsequently provides substantial assistance to the government. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). Third, a court may correct a sentence "imposed as a result of arithmetical, technical, or other clear error," within seven days after the imposition of sentence. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(c).
Outside of these three circumstances, the Court lacks the authority to review and/or correct lawfully imposed sentences. See United States v. Apple, 962 F.2d 335, 337 (4th Cir. 1992) (noting that a sentencing court "no longer has the authority to reduce a sentence under other circumstances") (citing United States v. Hallam, 723 F. Supp. 66, 70 (N.D. Ind. 1989)); United States v. Hernandez, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1446 (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 1992) (noting that "the government has not requested a reduction in sentence, and thus the court has no authority under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to grant defendant's motion"). It is true that defendant is not requesting a reduction in her sentence, but an increase, although somewhat perversely the increase apparently would result in a decrease. Nonetheless, the requested increase in defendant's sentence is not a "correction" of her sentence, and in any event this Court now lacks the power either to "correct" or to modify her sentence. Accordingly, defendant's motion to increase her sentence is denied.
Stanley S. Harris
United States District Judge