United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
B. RUSSELL, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
1984, a federal grand jury charged William Dale Woolum with
two counts of transmitting altered postal money orders. [R. 1
(Indictment).] A jury convicted Woolum on both counts. [R. 13
(Verdict).] The Court sentenced Woolum to a ten-year term of
imprisonment to run consecutively with his then-outstanding
state-court-imposed sentence. [R. 15 (Judgment).] Woolum
timely appealed, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed. See United States v. Woolum, 782 F.2d
1044, 1985 WL 14105, at *1- 2 (6th Cir. 1985) (unpublished
Woolum seeks to amend nunc pro tunc that some
two-decade old judgment in order for his federal sentence to
run concurrent with, as opposed to consecutive to, the
state-court sentence. [R. 30 at 1 (Motion to Amend).] He does
not challenge “the length of the federal sentence
imposed, ” only the designation that be served
concurrently. [R. 40 at 2 (Reply).] The Government opposes
Woolum's motion, arguing that the Court has no
jurisdiction to revisit that sentence. [R. 37 at 1-4
(Response).] On that point, the Government is right.
district court “does not have inherent power to
resentence defendants at any time.” United States
v. Martin, 913 F.2d 1172, 1174 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting
United States v. Minor, 846 F.2d 1184, 1187 (9th
Cir. 1988)). “As ‘courts of limited jurisdiction,
' federal courts ‘possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute' and may not
expand that power ‘by judicial decree.'”
United States v. Lucido, 612 F.3d 871, 873 (6th Cir.
2010) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Woolum, as the party
claiming that this Court does possess jurisdiction,
“bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdictional
prerequisites have been met.” United States v.
Streck, 62 F. App'x 575, 577 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing
Ohio Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 922
F.2d 320, 324 (6th Cir. 1990)).
motion, however, Woolum has not identified any basis for the
Court to exercise jurisdiction, and the Court is aware of
none. Although the Court had authority over Woolum's
criminal case some twenty years ago, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3231, that case ended when the judgment became final,
see Humphress v. United States, 398 F.3d 855, 860
(6th Cir. 2005), thereby divesting this Court “of all
jurisdiction” over it, Martin, 913 F.2d at
1174. Since Woolum's sentence has been final for decades,
the Court may not modify it unless “expressly permitted
by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B).
two statutory avenues for relief, see United States v.
Zabawa, 134 F. App'x 60, 67-68 (6th Cir. 2005),
neither appears to be available. The first, pertaining to
intervening reversals on appeal, is of no significance here.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. With respect to the
second, the Court will not construe Woolum's motion,
having been filed by able counsel, as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
petition. See United States v. Esters, 7 F.3d 235,
1993 WL 384936, at *2 (6th Cir. 1993) (unpublished table
decision) (affirming district court's decision to refuse
to construe motion for modification of sentence as §
2255 motion); United States v. Tolbert, No.
3:09-CR-56, 2015 WL 3633549, at *1-2 (E.D. Tenn. June 10,
Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 is inapplicable as well, as it
only permits correction for “arithmetical, technical,
or other clear error, ” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), or
reduction upon a substantial assistance motion, Fed. R. Crim.
P. 35(b)(1)-(2). The same holds true for Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 36 too. Rule 36 is available to correct
clerical errors-not to cure “unexpressed sentencing
expectations.” United States v. Robinson, 368
F.3d 653, 656-57 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States
v. Coleman, 229 F.3d 1154, 2000 WL 1182460, at *2 (6th
Cir. 2000) (unpublished table decision)).
short, the Court sees no path to find jurisdiction over
Woolum's motion. The Court applauds the strides Woolum
has made toward rehabilitation, as outlined in his papers.
[See R. 30-6 at 1 (Letter from Warden Parker); R.
33-1 at 1 (Letter from Warden Seabold).] Be that as it may,
the Court has no authority to grant Woolum the relief he
IS HEREBY ORDERED that William Dale Woolum's
Motion to Amend, [R 30], is DENIED.