FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT APRI L11, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14195 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C
. D oc ke tN o. 89- 00103- C R
- 001 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s C L Y D E E . Y O U N G , a .k .a . R E D , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e So u th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( A p r i l 11, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: I n N o v e m b e r1 9 9 0 , a p p e lla n t w a s c o n v ic te d in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t o f s e v e r a lOn May 22 , 2 00 6, a

pp e lla nt m ov e d th ec ourt

to “ c or re c t th ere c ord”by

va c atin ghis 1 c onvic tio n o n Co unt Sixte e n o f t heindic tment f

or atte mptingto p os se ss w ithint e nt t o distribute in e xce ss o f 1 00 kil ogra

ms o f m ari

jua na . Thec ourt

denie d th emotion

on June5, 20 06 . This rulin gis n ot b e fo reus in t his a pp e a l. 2 o f f e n s e s h e c o m m itte d in c a r r y in g o u t a m a r iju a n a d is tr ib u tio n s c h e m e . H is
conv i ct i on s w er e a ff

i rm ed on appeal
. T he di stri ctcourtthere af t er(i n N ov em ber 1 9 9 8 ) v a c a te d o n e o f

h is c o n v ic tio n s – C o u n t T w o a lle g in g th a t h e c o n s p ir e d to p o s s e s s a n d d is tr ib u te m a r iju a n a – b e c a u s e it w a s a le s s e rin c lu d e d o f f e n s e in h is C o u n t O n e c o n v ic tio n f o re n g a g in g in a c o n tin u in g c r im in a l e n te rp r is e . T he m att erbefore us began w i th app el l ant ’ s M ay 7, 20 04 re qu es t– m ade a s a “M o tio n to v a c a te , m o d if y , o rs e t a s id e th e ju d g m e n t p u r s u a n t to [ F e d e r a l] R u le [ of C i vi l P r oc e dur e ] 60( b) ” – tha tthe c our tor de rva c a t e d the $50 a s s e s s m e nt i m po se d as par tof hi s C ou ntT w o sent ence . T he court , construi ng the re qu es tas h av i n g b een m ad e u n d er F ed eral R u l e o f C ri m i n al P ro ced u re 3 6 t o rem ed y a c l e r i c a l e r r or , gr a nt e d i ton J a nua r y 9, 2006. 1 A ppe l l a ntthe n r e que s t e d the c our ton J une 19, 2006, t o e nt e ra n or de rf or

“ cl ar i fi ca t i on and d et er m i nat i on , ” r ef erri ng t o t he Ja nu ary 9, 20 06 order. T he court d e n ie d th e m o tio n o n J u ly 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 , s ta tin g th a t n o c la r if ic a tio n w a s n e c e s s a r y . T hi s a ppe a l f

ol l ow e d. I t r e q u ir e s n o c ita tio n o f a u th o r ity to s a y th a t a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r e f u s a l to
c l a r i f y a pr e vi ous or de ri s r e vi e w e d f ora n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on. W e di s c e r n noIt may be that what appellant is seekingis the vacation of his conviction on Count 2 Sixte e n o f t

heindic tment. I f t

hat is wh at hede sire s, hesh ou ld a pp ly to t his c ourt fo r l e aveto f

ile a sec ond motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“A sec ond or succ essive motion [ under § 2255] must be cer tified as provide d in section 2254 by a pane l of the appropriate cour

t of appe als.”). We sa

y this becausehe has previously litigated a § 2255 motion. 3 abuse of di sc re t i on , m uch l es s e rr or, i n t he court ’ s r ef usal t o cl ar i fy an order g r a n tin g a p p e lla n t’s r e q u e s t f o rth e c a n c e lla tio n o f

a $ 5 0 a s s e s s m e n t. 2 AF F I RME D.