FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 7, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 28 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 1- cr-0 05 48 -PCH-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOHN COLE, a.k .a. Jo hn Arch ie Co le , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 7, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Jo hn Co le , a fed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he di stric t co urt’sde ni al of h is m ot io n t o c orrecthi s s en te nc e u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of C riminal

Pro cedur e 3 5( a). W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t i t l ack ed juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er the m ot io n a nd , acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . Co le was o rig in al ly con vi ct edin20 01 of f ire arm an d d ru g o ffen se s an d se nt en cedto li fe i m

pr is on m en t. Thi s co urt af firm edhi s co nv ic ti on s o n d ire ct 1 ap pe al in 20 02 . Uni te d Sta tes v. C ol e , 45 Fed . App ’x 88 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (u np ub li sh ed ). Between20 02 an d 2 01 0, Co le fil ednu m ero us m ot io ns ch al le ng in g hi s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es , in cl ud in g o ne m ot io n t o v acat e und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. InAug us t 2 01 1, Co le fil edth e in st an t m ot io n t o c orrecthi s s en te nc e u nd er Ru le 35 (a), ch al le ng in g t he us e o f two of h is pri or st at e co urt co nv ic ti on s t o en ha nc e h is sen te nc e. 2 The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t Co le ’s Rul e 3 5( a) m ot io n was un ti m el y an d, th eref or e, th atth e co urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er i t. Alt ern at iv el y , th e co urt
Specifica lly , Cole was convic ted of two drugoffe nses and two f irea rm offe nses. The 1 district court sentenc ed him to concur rent ter ms of 120 months, li fe imprisonment, and 360 months for the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ), and 21 U .S.C. § 841 offenses, re spectively . The four th count, a convic tion under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), c arried a mandatory consec utive 60-month term of imprisonment. Cole’s sentenc es we re e nhance d based on his 1985 and 1989 state cour t convictions 2 under F la. Stat. § 893.13. Cole contends that this statute is unconstitut ional on its face under Shelton v. Sec ’y, D ept. of Corr. , 802 F. Supp.2d 1289 (M.D. F la. 2011). 2de ni edth e m ot io n o n t he m eri ts . Col e n ow ap pe al s.

W e rev ie w de no vo qu es ti on s o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s jur is di ct io n. Uni te d St at es v. Oli ver , 14 8 F .3d12 74 , 12 75 (11 thCir . 19 98 ). “ [A]sid e fro m th e sp eci fic pa ram et ers setforth by the fed eral st atut ory pro vi si on s co ntro ll in g s en te nc in g, as well as t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e,” d is tri ctco urts do no t h av e th e au th or it y to m od ify a sen te nc e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Di az -Clark, 29 2 F .3d13 10 , 13 15 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . Ru le 35 pro vi de s: “ W it hi n 1 4 d ay s af te r se nt en ci ng , th e co urt m ay co rrec t a se nt en ce tha t re su lt edfro m ari th m et ic al , tec hn ic al , or o th er erro r.” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 35 (a). A di st ric t co urt ca n m od ify a sen te nc e u nd er Ru le 35 (a) o nl y withi n t he ru le ’s ti m e li m it at io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Sto ss el , 34 8 F .3d13 20 , 13 22 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Mo reo ve r, al th ou gh a di st ric t co urt h as juri sd ic ti on to m od ify a de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e in li m it edcir cu m st an ces , itha s n o i nh eren t au th or it y to m od ify a sen te nc e su a s

po nt e . Dia z- Clark, 29 2 F .3dat 1 31 6– 18 . Here, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly con cl ud edth atitlac ke d ju ris di ct io n t o m od ify Col e’s se nt en ces be cau se Co le fil edhi s R ul e 3 5( a) m ot io n i n 2 01 1, fa r be y on d t he rul e’s ti m e li m itform od ifyin g s en te nc es im po se d i n 2 00 1. W e 3 We liberally

construe pro sefilings to dete rmine if ther e is any leg ally justifiable basis 3 for r elief. Fernandez v . United States , 941 F.2d 1488, 1491 ( 11th Cir. 1991). Fe dera l prisoners seekingto collatera lly

attack the ir convictions and se ntence s g ener ally must do so under § 2255. 3co ns tru e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l as a di sm is sa l an d a ffi rm . Cf
. Ca ni v. Uni te d St at es , 33 1 F .3d12 10 , 12 16 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (co ns tru in g adi sm is sa l as a de ni al be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt p os se ss edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti onan d s ho ul d h av e de ni edth e d efen da nt ’s m ot io n o n t he m eri ts ). AFFIRMED.

28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also Sawye r v. Holder , 326 F.3d 1363, 1365 ( 11th Cir. 2003). But we cannot c onstrue Cole’s motion as a motion to vacate sentenc e under § 2255 beca

use Cole has previously

filed such a

motion, and he lacks pe rmission to file a second or succe ssive one. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)( A). 4