Case ID: f-appx_186/html/0467-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Purvis Ray CARTWRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-20553
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 21, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Purvis Ray Cartwright, Federal Correctional Institution Beaumont-Low, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Purvis Ray Cartwright, federal prisoner #59478-079, appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his motion to modify his sentence, purportedly filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b)(2)(B).

The Government argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Cartwright’s motion to modify. As the Government notes, “ 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b)(2)(B)” does not exist. A district court may modify the imposed term of imprisonment under limited circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Because Cartwright’s motion did not fall under any of the provisions of § 3582(c), it was unauthorized and without jurisdictional basis. United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir.1994). Moreover, it cannot be construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, because Cartwright has already filed one § 2255 motion and a second would be subject to the jurisdictional bar of the successive-motion provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). See United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir.2000). Because Cartwright’s appeal is without arguable merit, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Cartwright is hereby warned that any further repetitious or frivolous filings, including those attempting to circumvent statutory restrictions on filing second or successive § 2255 motions, may result in the imposition of sanctions against him. These sanctions may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.