Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-10-10630/USCOURTS-ca11-10-10630-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Marvin Harris
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 6, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-10630 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 0:99-cr-06064-WPD-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT MARVIN HARRIS,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(August 6, 2010)

Before CARNES, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Marvin Harris, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his

motion for resentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(7). Harris argues that his sentence

USCA11 Case: 10-10630 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 Page: 1 of 2
was erroneously enhanced based on a prior conviction for a drug offense, his right

to due process was violated because his indictment was defective and the evidence

against him was insufficient, and his order of forfeiture should be vacated. We

affirm.

The district court did not err by dismissing Harris’s motion. A convict may

be resentenced when a conviction for a “serious drug offense that was a basis for

sentencing” is declared “unconstitutional or is vitiated on the explicit basis of

innocence,” 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(7), but Harris presented no evidence to the

district court, nor does he even argue to this Court, that a prior conviction has been

overturned. Even if we construe Harris’s motion liberally, we find no basis for

relief. The district court considered Harris’s arguments and found that none of his

issues were “cognizable under a different remedial statutory framework.” United

States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624–25 (11th Cir. 1990). Harris’s arguments are

successive to those raised in previous collateral proceedings.

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Harris’s motion.

 

2

USCA11 Case: 10-10630 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 Page: 2 of 2