United States v. Kattan-Kassin, 81-83-CR-JLK.

• Decision Date: 31 July 1984
• Docket Number: No. 81-83-CR-JLK.,81-83-CR-JLK.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Isaac KATTAN-KASSIN Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

588 F. Supp. 127

UNITED STATES of America v. Isaac KATTAN-KASSIN Defendant.

No. 81-83-CR-JLK.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

July 31, 1984.

Jon May, U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff.

Oscar S. Rodriguez, Coral Gables, Fla., Robert Josefsberg, Miami, Fla., for defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE AND STATING COURT'S DISINCLINATION TO GRANT AN AMENDED ORDER ON MANDATE

JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the court upon the United States' Motion for Ruling Stating Court's Inclination and the defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence.

As to the Motion for Reduction of Sentence, the court notes that the motion was not timely filed. According to the defendant's own pleadings, the United States Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition for writ of certiorari on 27 February, 1984. The motion for reduction of sentence was not filed in this court until 27 June, 1984, 121 days after the denial of certiorari. Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, grants this court jurisdiction to reduce a sentence if the court deems such a reduction to be appropriate. However, this court's jurisdiction is limited to the 120 days after entry of any order or judgment of the Supreme Court denying review of, or having the effect of upholding, the lower decision. This 120 day limitation is measured from the date of the entry of the Supreme Court's order on its docket and it is jurisdictional and may not be extended by this court. Since the Motion for Reduction was not filed in a timely manner, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the motion.

A second impediment to consideration of the motion to reduce is that this court's order on mandate, which imposed this sentence, is currently on appeal. The court is without jurisdiction to reduce a sentence while that sentence is under consideration in the court of appeals.

The third impediment to reducing the defendant's sentence, and the most persuasive impediment, is that justice requires that the sentence not be reduced. This defendant committed a very serious crime against society and he was duly convicted of that crime in a court of law. That conviction has withstood appellate review and the defendant should be allowed no quarter in which to denigrate the soundness of that conviction or the seriousness of his crime. Full consideration was given to the defendant's arguments and pleas at both the sentencing and at the time this court issued its order on mandate. His arguments at this time fall on ears previously deafened by pleas for compassion that could not stand in light of the seriousness of the crime committed. Having fully considered the motion, it is denied.

As to the Motion for Ruling Stating Court's Inclination to Grant an Amended Order on Mandate was entered. The court to enter such an amended order. This court entered its Order on Mandate in this matter on 1 November, 1983, and that order is now under review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Subsequent to that appeal being filed, the United States moved the court of appeals to remand this case so that this court could reconsider the Order on Mandate. That motion was based on the premise that this court had not been fully apprised of all relevant factors when the Order on Mandate was entered. The court of appeals denied the Motion to Remand but stated that:

The parties should file whatever motions seem appropriate with

...