United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
the Court are the two Motions to Clarify
Matters Considered by the Court in
its Resentencing Defendant on March 14, 2014 (Docs. 218, 220)
filed by Petitioner, Thomas A. Nelson, Jr. The
United States filed an opposition. (Doc. 234). For the
following reasons, the motions are DENIED.
August 18, 2010, Petitioner, the former Mayor of the City of
New Roads, Louisiana, was charged by superseding indictment
with violating several bribery laws. (Doc. 30). On June 22,
2011, the jury found Petitioner guilty on each count in the
superseding indictment. (Doc. 112). On January 17, 2012,
Petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 132
months, and two years of supervised release. (Doc. 140).
Subsequently, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction, but ordered the Court
to recalculate the sentence. (Doc. 179).
to the resentencing, Defendant submitted a sentencing
memorandum urging leniency to account for extraordinary
family circumstances occasioned by his family's
involvement in a serious traffic accident after the original
sentencing. (Doc. 190 at p. 4). The memorandum alleged that
Petitioner's wife was permanently disabled as a result of
the accident. (Id.). Thereafter, Petitioner was
resentenced on March 14, 2014, to term of imprisonment of 120
months. (Doc. 194). In imposing a ten-year sentence at the
resentencing, the Court expressly considered:
Petitioner's family circumstances, and the medical
records regarding his wife's condition, which included
the fact that his wife suffered a traumatic brain injury and
was unable to work. (Doc. 197 at pp. 11, 13, 22).
Petitioner's first Motion to Clarify requests that the
Court clarify that certain medical reports, both of which are
dated after Petitioner was resentenced on March 14, 2014,
were or were not considered by the Court at the
resentencing.(Doc. 218). The second Motion to Clarify
requests that the Court supplement the record to include
numerous photographs that presumably document his
family's traffic accident. (Doc. 220). The United States
has opposed these motions arguing that these motions are
neither necessary nor relevant to any matter currently before
the Court. (Doc. 234).
the Court is sympathetic to Petitioner's circumstances,
it nonetheless agrees that such orders are unnecessary. It is
clear that the Court did not consider medical reports dated
months after the March 14, 2014, resentencing date.
Furthermore, Petitioner stated in his motion that
"because [the Court] could not have foreseen medical
diagnoses which had not yet been rendered or reduced to
writing, there are extraordinary and compelling circumstances
. . . within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. [§] 3582(c)(1)(A),
" the statute that permits modification of an imposed
term of imprisonment. (Doc. 218-1 at pp. 12-13). However,
because the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has not filed a motion
for a sentence reduction as required by 18 U.S.C.
§3582(c)(1)(A), it is improper for the Court to construe
this motion as being brought pursuant to § 3582, thereby
rendering the Court without jurisdiction. United States
v. Ibarra-Alcarez, 588 Fed.Appx. 345, 346 (5th Cir.
2014). See also United States v. Bridges, 116 F.3d
1110, 1112 (5th Cir. 1997) (noting that a district
court's jurisdiction to correct or modify a final
sentence is limited to those specific circumstances
enumerated in § 3582(b)).
none of the arguments raised by Petitioner fall within any of
these limited circumstances; therefore, the Court does not
have jurisdiction to clarify, modify, or correct his
sentence. See Bridges, 116 F.3d at
1112; Ibarra-Alcarez, 588 Fed.Appx.
IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioner's
Motions to Clarify Matters Considered by the Court in
its Resentencing Defendant (Docs. 218, 220) are
 Those violations included:
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)
(Count One); Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1343 and 1346 (Count Two); Use of Interstate
Facility in Aid of Racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1952 (Counts Three - Six); and Making False Statements, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Count Seven), (Doc.
This clarification is requested because
Petitioner alleges that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has
denied his request for a compassionate release based on his
wife's disability. (Doc. 218 at pp. 1-2). According to
the documentation submitted by Petitioner, BOP denied
reconsideration of the request because "Chief Judge
Jackson considered [Petitioner's] wife's condition,
as well as the hardships it caused to the children when he
re-sentenced [Petitioner] ¶ 120 months
incarceration." (Doc. 218-1 at p. 6).
The sentence imposed upon a judgment of
conviction is generally final and may be modified in only a
limited number of circumstances, such as (1) where the
director of the BOP moves, as outlined in §
3582(c)(1)(A), for a sentence reduction based upon
"extraordinary and compelling reasons" and
indicates that a reduction is consistent with the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors; (2) where, as outlined in
§ 3582(c)(2), a defendant was sentenced based upon a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission; (3) where permitted by the provisions
of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 and 18 U.S.C. §
3742; and (4) if the ...