Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_07-cv-08017/USCOURTS-alnd-2_07-cv-08017-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GARY A. WARREN )

)

v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 93-N-152-S

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-CO-8017-S

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

On February 28, 1994, Gary Warren was convicted of conspiring with a number of codefendants to distribute cocaine, crack cocaine, marijuana, and PCP in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846,

841(a)(1). (Count II of the indictment). On June 28, 1994, Warren was sentenced to imprisonment

for 293 months. On September 19, 1997, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Warren’s

conviction but vacated and remanded the sentence of Warren for a redetermination of the quantities

of cocaine to be attributed to him on sentencing. On November 6, 1998, Warren was resentenced to

imprisonment for 235 months. On April 28, 2000, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed this sentence, and

the judgment was issued as mandate on August 2, 2000. 

On June 2, 2005, this court denied a § 2255 motion filed by Warren. The memorandum of

opinion addressed the very claim that Warren attempts to raise in the present “Motion to Modify or

Reduce Term of Imprisonment pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(2) under Clarifying

Amendment 640 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 Effective November 1, 2002.” This court stated:

“Amendments claimed in § 3582(c)(2) motions may be retroactively

applied solely where expressly listed under § 1B1.10(c).” United

States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 909 (11 Cir. 2003).Warren

th

argues that because he was deemed a minor role participant in the

conspiracy and given a two level reduction, he should be the

beneficiary of a level 30 cap. Amendment 640 which became

effective November 1, 2002, modified U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3) to

provide a maximum base offense level of level 30 if the defendant

receives an adjustment under § 3B1.2 (Mitigating Role).... Amendment 640 ... may [not] be used to

FILED

 2007 May-21 PM 03:58

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:07-cv-08017-LSC-PWG Document 2 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 4
reduce Warren’s term of imprisonment because [it was] not specifically listed in § 1B1.10(c) as

appropriate amendments for retroactive application. Consequently, Warren is not entitled to a

reduction in his term of imprisonment.”

(CV 01-CO-8018-S, doc. #5).

On November 23, 2005, the Eleventh Circuit denied Warren’s certificate of appealability in

part “because although Warren did receive an adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, neither

Amendment 640 nor Amendment 688 may be used to reduce Warren’s term of imprisonment

because they were not specifically listed under § 1B1.10(c) as an amendment which could be

retroactively applied. United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 909 (11 Cir. 2003).” (CV 01- th

8018-S, Doc. #11). On January 24, 2006, the Eleventh Circuit denied Warren’s motion for

reconsideration. (CV 01-CO-8018-S, Doc. #12).

In Armstrong, the Court stated:

“[A] motion to modify an otherwise final judgment pursuant to §

3582(c)(2) is a limited and narrow exception to the rule that final

judgments are not to be modified.” Under this provision, Congress

has allowed for limited exceptions to the rule of finality, but only

where a sentence of imprisonment was ‘based on a sentencing range

that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission’

and § 3582(b). Thus, only amendments, clarifying or not, listed

under subsection (c) of § 1B1.10, and that have the effect of lowering

the sentencing range upon which a sentence was based, may be

considered for reduction of a sentence under § 3582(c)(2).”

347 F.3d at 909.

The court held that where a clarifying amendment is not expressly listed under § 1B1.10(c),

the relief sought must be in a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 rather than pursuant

to § 3582(c)(2). Id. Because this motion must be construed as a § 2255 motion, the court must

dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction as it is clearly a second or successive motion to vacate and Warren

has not first received authorization to file it from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Case 2:07-cv-08017-LSC-PWG Document 2 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 4
Section 2255 provides in pertinent part:

A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in

section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to

contain–

(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of

the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and

convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found

the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on

collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously

unavailable.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides:

Before a second orsuccessive application permitted by this section is

filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate

court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider

the application.

In Burton v. Stewart, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 793, 796, 166 L.Ed.2d 628, (2007), the

United States Supreme Court held in the § 2254 context that because a state prisoner did not receive

authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing his second challenge, “the district court was

without jurisdiction to entertain it.” In Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11 Cir. 2003), th

the Eleventh Circuit held in the § 2255 context:

Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider

a second or successive petition. See Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088,

1089 (11th Cir.1997). Because Farris did not have authorization from

this Court before filing his Rule 60(b) motion, the district court did

not err in denying his motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255

motion.

This action is due to be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. A separate order consistent

with this Memorandum of Opinion will be entered simultaneously herewith.

Case 2:07-cv-08017-LSC-PWG Document 2 Filed 05/21/07 Page 3 of 4
As to the foregoing it is SO ORDERED this the 21st day of May, 2007.

 ____________ 

L. SCOTT COOGLER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

124153

 

Case 2:07-cv-08017-LSC-PWG Document 2 Filed 05/21/07 Page 4 of 4