United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
K. DUBOSE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action is before the Court on the Motion for Fast and Speedy
Disposition filed by Defendant Robert Lee Williams (doc. 4).
Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, the
Motion is DENIED, or alternatively, DISMISSED for lack of
1977, Williams pled guilty to the federal offense of
possession of an unregistered firearm. On January 5, 1978, he
was sentenced to a term of three years. His sentence was
suspended and he was placed on probation for three years
(doc. 1-1). His sentence was to run “consecutive to all
state charges” and to commence upon his “release
from state custody” (doc. 1-1). Williams was before
this Court on a Writ of Habeas Corpus as Prosequendum;
therefore, he was remanded back to state custody to serve his
state sentence (doc. 1, p. 1).
Court's docket is silent until October 15, 1986, when
Williams' U.S. Probation Officer filed a Petition for
Probation Action and warrant for Williams' arrest. Thus,
at some point between January 1978 and October 1986, Williams
completed his state sentence and began serving his federal
probation sentence. On October 20, 1986, the Federal detainer
warrant was entered in Williams' state court record (doc.
1, p. 6). The offense that gave rise to the Petition for
Probation Action is not listed on the Federal docket.
However, Williams' Inmate Summary indicates that on
October 2, 1986, he was sentenced by the state court to life
for murder, and on June 16, 1986, he was sentenced by the
state court to fifteen years for Burglary III (doc. 1, p.
6).The Inmate Summary indicates that Williams
would serve these sentences consecutively.
March 1987, Williams was brought before this Court on a Writ
of Habeas Corpus ad Prosequendum (doc. 1-1). On March 24,
1987, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to serve
a term of three years. The docket does not indicate whether
the Federal revocation sentence would be served concurrent
with or consecutive to Williams' state court sentences.
sentencing, Williams returned to state custody. He is
currently serving the state sentence of life,  which was imposed
October 2, 1986. He is incarcerated at Fountain Correctional
Facility in Atmore, Alabama (doc. 1, p. 6).
moves the Court for a “fast and speedy
disposition” pursuant to the Sixth Amendment and the
Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq.
Williams states that an arrest warrant was issued in 1977 for
his federal offense of possession of an unregistered firearm.
He argues that his speedy trial rights have been violated
because his “pending case is depriving [him] of
entering rehabilitative programs”. (Doc. 4, p. 2). He
also asserts that this deprivation has violated his Due
Process and Equal Protections rights under the Fourteenth
pled guilty to this offense and was sentenced in 1978. He was
also sentenced for the probation violation in 1986.
Therefore, there is no “pending case” before this
Court. Accordingly, Williams' Motion for Fast and Speedy
Disposition is due to be denied. See Parris v. Warden,
Limestone Corr. Facility, 542 Fed.Appx. 850, 852 (11th
Cir. 2013) (“This right to a speedy trial attaches at
the time of arrest or indictment, whichever comes first, and
continues until the date of trial.”) (citing United
States v. Knight, 562 F.3d 1314, 1323 (11th Cir.2009)).
Williams moves the Court to modify his sentence (doc. 4, p.
2-3). Specifically, Williams argues that his sentence should
be modified to run “concurrent with all other cases
whether federal or state to satisfy the Due Process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Id.)He argues that his
federal sentence has been “imposed consecutive but not
concurrent in order to hold [him] in limbo” and thus
“depriving [him] from meaningful rehabilitative
Court may modify a sentence in limited circumstances none of
which are present here. Pursuant to Rule 35(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, “a district court may,
‘[w]ithin 14 days after sentencing, ... correct a
sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other
clear error.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a). This time limit is
jurisdictional. United States v. Floyd, 711
Fed.Appx. 558, 560 (11th Cir. 2017). Since the fourteen-day
time period has long expired, the Court lacks jurisdiction
under Rule 35(a) to modify the sentence. “Rule 36
allows a district court, after giving any notice it considers
appropriate, to 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. Fed.
R. Crim. P. 36.” Id. Modifying the sentence
from consecutive to concurrent would be a substantive
alteration, and “Rule 36 may not be used to make
substantive alterations to a criminal sentence”
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the district court may
modify a sentence upon a motion of the Director of the Bureau
of Prisons in limited circumstances set out in the statute.
Also, pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), the district court may
modify a sentence if a “defendant who has been
sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). But the facts
alleged do not show a basis for the application of these
no method for modification appears to be available to
Williams, his motion is due to be denied or in the