United States v. Lassiter
United States v. Lassiter
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) ) Criminal No. 08-0376 (PLF) GREGORY LASSITER, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is defendant Gregory Lassiter’s Motion and/or
Supplemental Brief in Support of Pro Se Motion for Reduction of Sentence or for Compassionate
Release under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and/or the CARES Act. Motion and/or Supplemental
Brief in Support of Pro Se Motion for Reduction of Sentence or for Compassionate Release
(“Def.’s Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 263]. The government opposes the motion, arguing that Mr. Lassiter
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that the Court lacks jurisdiction to modify Mr.
Lassiter’s sentence. Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Pro Se and Supplemental Motion
to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to the Compassionate Release Statute
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
(“Gov’t Opp.”) [Dkt. No. 265]. For the reasons explained below, this Court will deny the motion
for compassionate release without prejudice.
The Court is inclined to deny Mr. Lassiter’s motion on the merits, though
circumstances may certainly change with the passage of time. Regardless, the Court ultimately
finds that it does not have jurisdiction to grant this motion in light of Mr. Lassiter’s pending
appeal in the D.C. Circuit regarding his 300-month sentence. See Notice of Appeal, United
States v. Lassiter, No. 20-3021 at 16 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2020). The government notes that “the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of
jurisdictional significance – it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district
court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Gov’t Opp. at 20
(quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.,
459 U.S. 56, 58(1982)). It argues,
therefore, that “[t]he moment that defendant filed his notice of appeal . . . this Court was divested
of jurisdiction over his sentence.” Gov’t Opp. at 20. The Court agrees with the government that
as long as Mr. Lassiter is pursuing his appeal, this Court does not have jurisdiction to modify his
sentence. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion and/or Supplemental Brief in Support of Pro
Se Motion for Reduction of Sentence or for Compassionate Release [Dkt. No. 263] is DENIED
without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge
DATE: July 27, 2020
2
Reference
- Status
- Published