Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:96-cr-00025-MP

GEORGE WASHINGTON PARKER, JR,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 105, Motion to Correct Erroneous Prior

Convictions in the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSR), filed by Defendant. Defendant

states that he is bringing his motion pursuant to Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure. Defendant’s motion is untimely, to say the least. Defendant was sentenced in the

instant case on April 15, 1997. Doc. 39. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment on

September 2, 1998. Doc. 56. On October 6, 2000, the Court denied at Doc. 69 Defendant’s

motion to vacate, and the Eleventh Circuit dismissed at Doc. 88 Defendant’s subsequent appeal. 

Although the Court is without jurisdiction to hear a motion brought pursuant to Rule 32,

the Court is “obligated to look beyond the label of a pro se inmate’s motion to determine if it is

cognizable under a different statutory framework.” United States v. Stossel, 348 F.3d 1320 (11th

Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624-25 (11th Cir. 1990). Here,

Defendant’s motion could be construed as a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Indeed, it

appears Defendant is once again arguing that he is entitled to a reduced sentence based on

Case 1:96-cr-00025-MP-GRJ Document 106 Filed 01/02/09 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1

As with Defendant’s previous motion to reduce sentence, the instant motion makes

reference to “Amendment 12" to § 4A1.2(a)(2). However, as stated in the order denying

Defendant’s previous motion, Amendment 12 modified § 2B2.1(b)(2). That amendment is not

applicable to the facts of Defendant’s case, and it is clear Defendant intended to cite Amendment

709. The Court treats Defendant’s motion accordingly.

Case No: 1:96-cr-00025-MP

Amendment 709 to § 4A1.2(a)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”).1

This is the same argument Defendant made in his previous § 3582(c) motion, Doc. 90, which the

Court denied at Doc. 93. The Court also denied Defendant’s subsequent motion for

reconsideration and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Doc. 98. For the reasons

stated in the Court’s previous order at Doc. 93, Defendant is entitled to no relief under § 3582(c). 

Defendant’s motion could also be construed as a second or successive motion to vacate

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, Defendant’s first motion to vacate was denied, and

Defendant has not sought leave to file a second or successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

2244(b)(3) and 2255. In any event, Defendant’s argument for a reduced sentence based on the

retroactive application of Amendment 709 would not be cognizable under § 2255. That

construction would therefore be of no help to Defendant. There being no other statutory

framework under which the relief sought could be granted, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion at Doc. 105 is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of January, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:96-cr-00025-MP-GRJ Document 106 Filed 01/02/09 Page 2 of 2