Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20878/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20878-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Armando Macin-Herrera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20878

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARMANDO MACIN-HERRERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-359-ALL

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Armando Macin-Herrera, federal prisoner # 88375-079,

appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to recall his

sentence. He argues that after he was convicted and sentenced, we

held that burglary of a building and unauthorized use of a motor

vehicle were not aggravated felonies under the amended version of

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 323

F.3d 317, 319 (5th Cir. 2003). He argues that under the amended

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 9, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 03-20878 Document: 0051252306 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2004
2

version of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, his sentence, which was enhanced under

the prior version of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 based on his prior convictions for burglary of a motor vehicle and auto theft, should be

vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

The district court did not have authority to reduce

Macin-Herrera’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, or Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Because the amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 was not listed in

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), the amendment cannot be given retroactive

effect in the context of a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. See

United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 218 (5th Cir. 1996). Even if

the motion were liberally construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,

the district court would not have had authority to consider or

grant it because it was not filed within the applicable one-year

statute of limitations. See United States v. Thomas, 203 F.3d 350,

354-55 (5th Cir. 2000). Rule 35 provides for the correction of a

sentence on remand, the reduction of a sentence for substantial

assistance upon the Government’s motion, and for the correction of

a sentence by the sentencing court within seven days after

imposition of the sentence. FED. R. CRIM. P. 35. Therefore, Rule 35

was not applicable to Macin-Herrera’s motion. Macin-Herrera’s

motion was an unauthorized motion which the district court was

without jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early, 27

 Case: 03-20878 Document: 0051252306 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2004
3

F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the district court’s

denial of Macin-Herrera’s motion is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-20878 Document: 0051252306 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/09/2004