Memorandum Decision and Order — United States v. Anderson (Dkt. 44, D. Idaho)

Summary

A memorandum decision and order of Chief U.S. District Court Judge David C. Nye in United States v. Jase Ryan Anderson, Case No. 1:22-cr-00163-DCN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, dated and filed August 21, 2023 as Dkt. 44. It denies the defendant's Motion for Rule 35 Relief (Dkt. 42), which the government opposed (Dkt. 43), on the briefs. The order recounts that Anderson was indicted on August 9, 2022 for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced on March 27, 2023 to 110 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release, at the bottom of an advisory range of 110 to 137 months based on offense level 25 and criminal history category VI.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 1:22-cr-00163-DCN Document 44 Filed 08/21/23 Page 1 of 4




                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                 Case No. 1:22-cr-00163-DCN
         Plaintiff,
  v.                                             MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
                                                 ORDER
  JASE RYAN ANDERSON,

         Defendant.


                                  I. INTRODUCTION

       Before the Court is Defendant Jase Ryan Anderson’s Motion for Rule 35 Relief.

Dkt. 42. The Government has filed an opposition to the Motion. Dkt. 43. The matter is ripe

for review. Because oral argument would not significantly aid its decision-making process,

the Court will decide the motion on the briefing. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B). For

the reasons below, the motion is DENIED.

                                   II. BACKGROUND

       On August 9, 2022, a federal grand jury indicted Anderson on one count of

Possession with Intent to Distribute Fentanyl. Dkt. 1. Anderson eventually pleaded guilty

(Dkt. 25) and, on March 27, 2023, he was sentenced by the Court (Dkt. 37). At sentencing,

the Court concluded Anderson’s applicable offense level was 25 and his criminal history

category was VI, resulting in an advisory guideline range of 110 to 137 months

imprisonment under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Dkt. 39. After considering

the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the Court ultimately imposed a sentence of 110

months imprisonment with four years of supervised release to follow. Dkt. 38.


MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

         Case 1:22-cr-00163-DCN Document 44 Filed 08/21/23 Page 2 of 4




       On April 10, 2023, Anderson filed a Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to Rule

35. Dkt. 42. Therein, he claims the Court committed “clear error” because the sentence

imposed was “excessive and unnecessary.” Id. The Government opposes Anderson’s

request, asserting the Court lacks jurisdiction to make any changes to his sentence at this

point and, more importantly, because his reason for making the request is not the type that

would be dealt with under Rule 35.

                                 III. LEGAL STANDARD

       “A court generally may not correct or modify a sentence of imprisonment once it

has been imposed.” United States v. Aguilar-Reyes, 653 F.3d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 2011)

(citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)). “A court may modify such a sentence only ‘to the extent

otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure.’” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B)). Rule 35(a) provides that a court may

correct a sentence that resulted “from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error,” within

fourteen days of sentencing. Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 35(a). The Ninth Circuit has held that the

fourteen-day deadline is jurisdictional, which means that district courts lose the power to

amend a sentence after fourteen days. Aguilar-Reyes, 653 F.3d at 1055.

                                      IV. ANALYSIS

       Here, Anderson filed his Rule 35 motion on the fourteenth day after he was

sentenced, but the language of the rule indicates that that is the deadline for relief itself,

not just filing. In other words, the Court can correct a sentence within that timeframe, but

after that, it loses jurisdiction. “[T]he fourteen-day period to correct a sentence for

arithmetical, technical, or other clear error is jurisdictional, and [] a district court cannot


MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

         Case 1:22-cr-00163-DCN Document 44 Filed 08/21/23 Page 3 of 4




adjust a sentence outside of the fourteen-day window even if the Rule 35(a) motion is filed

within that window.” United States v. JDT, 762 F.3d 984, 1005 (9th Cir. 2014).

       Here, the fourteen-day window has long since closed. As such, the Court lacks

jurisdiction to decide Anderson’s Motion. Even if the Court had jurisdiction to correct

Anderson’s sentence, it would not. There was no clear error here.

       As the advisory committee notes explain, Rule 35(a) does not provide a vehicle for

courts to reconsider the appropriateness of the sentence imposed:

       The authority to correct a sentence under this subdivision is intended to be
       very narrow and to extend only to those cases in which an obvious error or
       mistake has occurred in the sentence . . .. [Subsection (a)] is not intended to
       afford the court the opportunity to reconsider the application or interpretation
       of the sentencing guidelines or for the court simply to change its mind about
       the appropriateness of the sentence. Nor should it be used to reopen issues
       previously resolved at the sentencing hearing through the exercise of the
       court’s discretion with regard to the application of the sentencing guidelines.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 advisory committee’s notes, 1991 Amendment.

       Here, Anderson does not argue that the sentence is technically, arithmetically, or

even legally incorrect; instead, he argues his sentence is clearly erroneous because it is

excessive and unnecessary. Dkt. 42. But even if this were true, this argument goes to the

appropriateness of the Court’s sentence and thus falls outside the ambit of Rule 35(a).

       If Anderson has a grievance with his sentence, the proper route is to appeal or bring

a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or 18 U.S.C. § 3582. But not under Criminal Rule 35.

       In this case, the Court did not commit any error that needs to be remedied. It

sentenced Anderson to the very bottom of the applicable guideline range and explained its

reasons for doing so on the record. Anderson may disagree, but he cannot challenge the



MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

         Case 1:22-cr-00163-DCN Document 44 Filed 08/21/23 Page 4 of 4




Court’s sentence via this type of motion.

                                       V. ORDER

      IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

      1. Anderson’s Motion for Rule 35 Relief (Dkt. 42) is DENIED.


                                             DATED: August 21, 2023


                                             _________________________
                                             David C. Nye
                                             Chief U.S. District Court Judge




MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

File and source

File

44.pdf

Size

158,322 bytes

SHA-256

84cfb498b5e8c503447d7efed2a9bc79dc608f5512448b43f1607c8f850c57ed

Our copy

44.pdf