Free Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cr-00044-JCH

Document 651

Filed 10/23/2007

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GEORGE CUNNINGHAM : : : : : 3:00CR44 (JCH) OCTOBER 23, 2007

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO RECONSIDER / MOTION FOR CORRECTED JUDGMENT The Defendant, George Cunningham, files this Supplemental Motion to Reconsider as a supplement to the Defendant's October 17, 2007 Motion To Reconsider. It is submitted that this filing can also be considered a Motion for Corrected Judgment, as the relief requested is for the Court to reconsider its sentence and, in turn, file a corrected judgment. As the Judgment currently states, Mr. Cunningham is still indebted to the United States to the amount of $900.00. Said amount has been paid. If the Judgement remains in its current state, the Bureau of Prisons would still be under the impression that the amount is still outstanding. The Defendant proposes that the deputy clerk prepare and file a CORRECTED final judgment in this case, which happens occasionally in those cases where the deputy clerk or the parties anticipate further proceedings or an appeal. It is submitted that a Court's sua sponte filing of a CORRECTED final judgment can be accomplished in this matter. If the Court and

Government are amenable to a reduced term of custodial imprisonment then a new final judgment should be issued to reflect the new sentence. The issue seems to be whether or not the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) will honor a reduced sentence should Mr. Cunningham be resentenced and receive less than 120 days. The answer appears to be YES, BOP will absolutely honor it. Whenever BOP has an issue with what to do or how to construe the specific language or custodial sentence required by the Court as set forth in

Case 3:00-cr-00044-JCH

Document 651

Filed 10/23/2007

Page 2 of 3

an official document, BOP will go first to the U.S. Attorney's office (and specific AUSA) who handled the case. If the AUSA has no problem with the language and custodial sentence set forth in the CORRECTED final judgment (say, 60 days rather than 120 days), then BOP has no where else to go -- nor should they, given BOP's statutory directive as an Executive Branch agency to implement and enforce in a ministerial fashion -- not create or act to refashion -- the sentencing order of an Article III judge with jurisdiction in a particular case over a specific person. Alternatively, the second alternative reflects the reality today that the Financial Litigation Unit in every U.S. Attorney's office pursues any and all monies owed by a sentenced defendant. The truth is that the payment of $900 MUST be reflected in some court document as having been paid by the client, so he isn't required to pay it again in the future -- by a probation officer, by a court seeking to enforce a possibly civil judgment entered against the client, by a lender or creditor who is attempting to provide the client with financial assistance in some unknown matter in the future. I'm not familiar with all the technical procedures applicable to liquidated or floating (unliquidated) debts in civil practice, but ANY authority to reopen the judgment or re-issue a final or updated total on the remaining financial obligation to be paid should give the Court the comfort level required to also readdress the custodial time a client should serve given the updated information regarding the debt being much lower than it existed when the Court initially imposed the sentence. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court to reconsider its sentence and, in turn, file a corrected judgment.

2

Case 3:00-cr-00044-JCH

Document 651

Filed 10/23/2007

Page 3 of 3

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, GEORGE CUNNINGHAM

By ___/s/_________________________________ FRANK J. RICCIO LAW OFFICES FRANK J. RICCIO LLC 923 EAST MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 491 BRIDGEPORT CT 06601-0491 Fed Bar #CT 00148 (203) 333-6135 (phone) (203) 333-6190 (fax) [email protected] (email) www.ricciolaw.com (site)

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on October 23, 2007, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.

__/s/________________________________ FRANK J. RICCIO LAW OFFICES OF FRANK J. RICCIO LLC

3