Opinion and Order — United States v. Shawn Ray Murnan (Northern District of Oklahoma, Document 39)

Summary

Opinion and Order dated June 26, 2025, in United States v. Shawn Ray Murnan, Case No. 25-CR-00014-SEH, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, filed as Document 39. Before the Court is Murnan's motion to reconsider sentence [ECF No. 37]. The order explains that Rule 35(a) permits a court to correct a sentence resulting from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error within 14 days after sentencing, and that Murnan filed within 14 days but does not argue such an error. Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no such error and denies the motion.

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

Full text

Case 4:25-cr-00014-SEH   Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 06/26/25     Page 1 of 2




               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
             FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA


 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                   Plaintiff,

 v.                                            Case No. 25-CR-00014-SEH
 SHAWN RAY MURNAN,

                   Defendant.


                            OPINION AND ORDER

      Before the Court is Defendant Shawn Murnan’s motion to reconsider

 sentence. [ECF No. 37]. Generally, a district court “has no authority to

 modify a sentence once it is imposed.” United States v. Gladney, 44 F.4th

 1253, 1259 (10th Cir. 2022) (internal brackets and quotation omitted). Rule

 35(a) provides a limited exception, stating that “[w]ithin 14 days after

 sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical,

 technical, or other clear error.” Murnan brings his motion within 14 days of

 sentencing but does not argue that his sentence resulted from an

 arithmetical, technical, or other clear error. And the Court, having reviewed

 the record, finds no such error. Rule 35 “does not provide a basis for a court to

 simply reconsider its sentencing decision.” United States v. Mendoza, 543

 F.3d 1186, 1196 (10th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Lonjose, 663 F.3d
Case 4:25-cr-00014-SEH   Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 06/26/25     Page 2 of 2




 1292, 1299 n.7 (10th Cir. 2011) (Rule 35(a) “was intended to be very narrow

 and to extend only to those cases in which an obvious error or mistake had

 occurred” (quotation omitted)); United States v. Harris, 358 F. Supp. 3d 1202,

 1205 (D. Colo. Feb. 1, 2019) (“‘clear error,’ whatever else it means, does not

 appear to include the results of re-weighing the § 3553(a) factors”).

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to reconsider

 sentence [ECF No. 37] is DENIED.

    DATED this 26th day of June, 2025.




                                      Sara E. Hill
                                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                         2


File and source

File

39.pdf

Size

151,514 bytes

SHA-256

ff943e1af1f2984c66b9ac075ab4b3fc413be7d52a9aa3c542b7264425f93c12

Our copy

39.pdf

Original

archive.org