Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11092/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11092-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11092

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:00-cr-00199-FAM-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 versus

JEFFREY SMITH, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(September 4, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, HULL and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-11092 Date Filed: 09/04/2015 Page: 1 of 3
2

On February 28, 2003, Jeffrey Smith, having been found guilty by a jury, 

was sentenced to life imprisonment for carjacking and a consecutive term of 60

months for possession of a firearm in connection with that offense. We affirmed 

his conviction and sentence initially, United States v. Moseley, 103 Fed. App’x 665 

(Table) (11th Cir. 2004), and on remand from the Supreme Court following that 

Court’s Booker decision, United States v. Moseley, 143 Fed. App’x 297 (Table) 

(11th Cir. 2005). 

On November 1, 2014, Smith moved the District Court to modify his 

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. The District Court denied the motion for 

lack of jurisdiction. Smith now appeals. He challenges his convictions on the 

ground, among others, that the District Court erred in its jury instructions. He 

challenges his life sentence on several grounds, including that the District Court 

erred in its sentencing when it determined that Smith was a career criminal based 

on facts not found by the jury and denying his request for a downward departure. 

Smith’s motion did not indicate on which of the four subparts of § 3582 he 

is relying, but we assume that it is § 3582(c), which governs modifications to terms

of imprisonment. That subpart provides that a court may modify a sentence of 

imprisonment only if one of the following three circumstances exists: (1) the 

Bureau of Prisons has filed a motion and either “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons warrant such a reduction” or the defendant meets certain age and timeUSCA11 Case: 15-11092 Date Filed: 09/04/2015 Page: 2 of 3
3

already-served requirements; (2) another statute or Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 35 expressly permits a sentence modification1

; or (3) the defendant has 

been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that was 

subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)-(2).

Smith has not alleged the existence of any of the three circumstances of 

§ 3582 (c) that could entitle him to the relief he is seeking. Lacking a statutory 

basis to do so, the District Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain Smith’s 

motion to modify his sentence. Accordingly, the District Court properly denied 

that motion.

AFFIRMED.

 1

 Rule 35 provides for correction of a sentence within 14 days of sentencing, if the sentence 

resulted from “arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). 

USCA11 Case: 15-11092 Date Filed: 09/04/2015 Page: 3 of 3