govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_07-cr-00035-7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
United States of America,   
Plaintiff, 
v. 
Carl Lee Richardson,  
Defendant. 
Criminal No. 07-35 (DWF/AJB) 
MEMORANDUM 
OPINION AND ORDER 
INTRODUCTION 
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Carl Lee Richardson’s pro se motion 
to reduce sentence.  (Doc. No. 86.)  The United States of America opposes the motion.  
(Doc. No. 93.)  For the reasons set forth below, the Court respectfully denies the motion. 
BACKGROUND 
Richardson was convicted by a jury of being an armed career criminal in 
possession of a firearm on February 6, 2007.  (Doc. Nos. 1, 9.)  On May 11, 2007, Judge 
Richard H. Kyle sentenced Richardson to a 235-month prison term to be followed by a 
five-year term of supervised release.  (Doc. No. 25.)  While incarcerated, Richardson 
committed an assault, for which he was eventually sentenced by a district judge in the 
Western District of Wisconsin to 48 months’ imprisonment to be served consecutive to 
his term in this case.  (W.D. Wisc. Crim. No. 18-54, Doc. No. 51.)  Richardson is 
currently incarcerated at FCI Phoenix with an anticipated release date of April 8, 2028.  
CASE 0:07-cr-00035-DWF-AJB     Doc. 95     Filed 05/29/26     Page 1 of 3
2 
Find an Inmate., Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc (last visited 
May 28, 2026). 
Richardson moves for a sentencing reduction based on his completion of 
numerous programs while incarcerated.  (Doc. No. 86.)  Additionally, he asks the Court 
to review his guideline range and how the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) calculated his 
sentence.  (Doc. No. 87; Doc. No. 93-1 at 9.)1 
DISCUSSION 
Courts have the power to modify a prison term only when granted that authority 
by statute.  18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).  Rehabilitation alone is not a reason for which a court 
may grant a sentence reduction.  See United States v. Milton, 11 F.4th 597, 600 (8th Cir. 
2021).  Prisoners typically seek to modify or otherwise vacate their sentence through 
motions to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).  
Richardson has not shown that he is entitled to relief under either of those statutes.  As for 
his complaints about how the BOP calculated his sentence, the Court has no power to 
review the BOP’s computation decision.  See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 
(1992) (finding that the Attorney General has the power to calculate prison sentences 
under 18 U.S.C. § 3585); 28 C.F.R. § 0.96 (2026) (delegating authority over the 
 
1  It appears that Richardson initially sent  the motion for the Western District of 
Wisconsin to this Court and the motion intended for this Court to the Western District of 
Wisconsin.  The Court considers all requests below in relation to his sentence in this case.  
The Court has no power over his sentence from the Western District of Wisconsin. 
CASE 0:07-cr-00035-DWF-AJB     Doc. 95     Filed 05/29/26     Page 2 of 3
3 
commitment, control, and treatment of persons convicted of offenses against the United 
States to the BOP.) 
In conclusion, Richardson has not provided a basis for the Court to revisit his 
sentence.  Accordingly, the Court denies his motion.  The Court commends Richardson 
for his efforts to rehabilitate himself while in prison.  The Court is confident that if he 
continues down this path, he will live the life he wants to live upon his release. 
ORDER 
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 
that Defendant Carl Lee Richardson’s pro se motion to reduce sentence.  (Doc. No. [86]) 
is respectfully DENIED. 
 
Dated:  May 29, 2026   s/Donovan W. Frank   
DONOV AN W. FRANK 
United States District Judge 
CASE 0:07-cr-00035-DWF-AJB     Doc. 95     Filed 05/29/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight