Case ID: f-appx_9/html/0155-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rutherford Ronald ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-6225.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 24, 2001.
    Decided May 15, 2001.
    
      Rutherford Ronald Rogers, pro se.
    E. Thomas Roberts, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Rutherford Ronald Rogers filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under former Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a), applicable to offenses committed before November 1, 1987, challenging offenses he committed both before and after that date. The district court denied Rogers’ claims on the merits. We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error in the denial of relief relating to the offenses Rogers committed before November 1, 1987. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district court’s order on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Rogers, No. CR-88-70-K (D. Md. filed Jan. 12, 2001; entered Jan. 16, 2001).

With regard to Rogers’ challenge to the offenses he committed after November 1, 1987, former Rule 35(a) does not apply. The current Rule 35(a), applicable to offenses committed after November 1, 1987, specifies the circumstances under which a sentence may be modified; none of those circumstances is present here. Because Rogers may not proceed under the former rule to challenge the offenses he committed after November 1, 1987, we affirm the denial of relief on that ground. United States v. Lofton, 233 F.3d 313, 317 n. 4 (4th Cir.2000) (recognizing that appellate court may affirm result on reasons different from those on which lower court relied). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Construing the Rule 35 motion as one filed under 28 U.S.C.A.- § 2255 (West Supp.2000) does not save the action. Before Rogers may file a successive § 2255 motion, he must obtain authorization from this court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp.2000).