LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge.
The matter before the court is Defendant Darryl Fonte Jackson's pro se motion ("Motion") (docket no. 72), which the clerk's office filed on April 30, 2013.
In the Motion, Defendant requests that the court reconsider its April 16, 2013 Order (docket no. 71), which denied Defendant's pro se motion to reduce sentence (docket no. 70). Defendant states nothing in the instant Motion that leads the court to a different conclusion. As the court stated in its April 16, 2013 Order, the court does not have the authority to grant Defendant the relief he requests; that is, Defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendments 706, 715 and 750 (Parts A and C only) to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the Fair Sentencing Act or any other amendment, rule or statute of which the court is aware. To the extent that Defendant asks the court to recommend that the director of the Bureau of Prisons file a motion to reduce Defendant's sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the court finds no basis for doing so. To the extent that Defendant requests that the court issue a certificate of appealability, such request is denied. The court did not construe Defendant's previous motion to reduce sentence as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and, thus, a certificate of appealability is not appropriate.
In light of the foregoing, the Motion (docket no. 72) is DENIED. The court cannot grant Defendant the relief he requests; if there is any relief available, it is through the appellate process. Thus, if Defendant wishes to continue arguing for a sentence reduction, he may file a notice of ...