Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_23-cr-00039-1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, -vs- KRISTY KAY LEBOEUF, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CR-23-39-F ) ) ) ) ORDER The court is in receipt from defenda nt of a “Motion for Reconsideration 18 U.S.C. [§] 3742(e) Post Sentencing Rehabilita tion Programming.” Doc. no. 76. Upon review, the court concludes a response from the government is not required. In her motion, defendant requests a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) based upon her post-senten cing rehabilitation efforts. According to defendant, she has received “15 certificates” since her incarceration in June 2024. Defendant primarily relie s upon Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011), in support of her motion. Howe ver, in Pepper, the Supreme Court held that a district court may consider evidence of a defenda nt’s post-sentencing rehabilitation “when a defendant’s sentence has been set as ide on appeal and [h er] case remanded for resentencing[.]” Id. at 490-91. In this case, defendant’s sentence has not been set aside by the Tenth Circuit Court of App eals and remanded to this court for resentencing. Consequently, § 3742(e) and Pepper do not provide authority for the Case 5:23-cr-00039-F Document 77 Filed 01/21/25 Page 1 of 2 2 court to reduce defendant’s sentence. 1 As such, defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3742(e), and the court finds defendant’s motion should be dismissed. Accordingly, defendant Kristy Kay Leboeuf’s “Motion for Reconsideration 18 U.S.C. [§] 3742(e) Post -Sentencing Rehabilitation Programming” (doc. no. 76), is DISMISSED. DATED this 21st day of January, 2025. 23-0039p014.docx 1 In addition, the other case authority, cited by defendant, does not provide authority to reduce defendant’s sentence under § 3742(e). Case 5:23-cr-00039-F Document 77 Filed 01/21/25 Page 2 of 2