OPINION AND ORDER
KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration Reduction (DE 21) in which the Defendant requests that her sentence be reduced due to her participation in educational opportunities while incarcerated. While the Court congratulates and commends the Defendant for taking advantage of these opportunities while in prison, the Court is unable to reduce her sentence.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) provides that "the court may modify an imposed term of imprisonment to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."
Only two statutory provisions permit such a modification: 28 U.S.C. §§ 2106 and 2255, both of which are inapplicable here. United States v. Zabawa, 134 F.Appx. 60, 67 (6th Cir. 2005). Section 2106 provides for the power of appellate courts to modify a lower court's judgment. Section 2255 permits a defendant to challenge a sentence as imposed. The Defendant does not challenge the Court's sentence of 27 months. As to Rule 35, it provides that, "[w]ithin 14 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error." The judgment in this case was entered on October 25, 2012. Thus, the Court has no authority to amend it under Rule 35.
The Court also has jurisdiction to amend a sentence in conformity with Fed R.Crim. P. 36, which provides "the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment, order or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission." Rule 36 does not provide this Court with authority to amend a defendant's sentence due to postsentencing activities.
For all these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Defendant's motion to reduce her sentence ...