FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 11, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 07- 13192 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 9 0 - 0 0 1 4 5 - CR- CB 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 A L L E N J A M E S S T A R K S , a .k .a . B ig A l, 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 rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 11, 2008) B efo re H U L L , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A lle n S ta r k s , p r o c e e d in g p r o s e , ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is2

mo t i o n t o “ a me n d ” th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s J u l y 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 o r d e rd e n y i n g h i s 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o tio n f

o rr e d u c tio n o f

h is s e n te n c e , o r , a lte rn a tiv e ly , to r e f ile h is § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) mo t i o n . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D I n 1991, S t a r ks w a s s e nt e nc e d t o l i f e i m pr i s onm e ntf

orc onvi c t i ons f

or c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne a nd c oc a i ne ba s e , s truc tur i ng tran sact i o n s w i th fi n an ci al i n st i tu t i o n s t o ev ad e cu rren cy rep o rt i n g req u i rem en t s, a n d m o n e y la u n d e r in g . I n A p r il 2 0 0 6 , S ta r k s f

ile d a § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o tio n s e e k in g a r e d u c tio n o f h is l i fe se nt ence base d o n A m endm ent50 5 t o the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, w hi ch a m e nde d the D rug Q ua nt i ty T abl e i n U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( c ) t o l ow e rthe m a xi m um b a s e o f f e n s e in th e tab le f

r o m 4 2 to 3 8 . O n J u ly 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d S ta rk s ’s § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o tio n . T he di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned thatA m endm ent50 5 w as i nt ended t o b e app l i ed re troac t i vel y, bu tthati tdi d n otl ow erS t arks’ s gui del i nes r ange from l i fe i m pri sonm entaf

t erthe rol e a nd ob struct i on -of- j ust i ce enhancem ent s he r ec ei ved w e r e ap p lie d . S t a r ks f i l e d a m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s J ul y 25, 2006 or de r , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our ts um m a r i l y de ni e d on A ugus t29, 2006. F i ve m onthsAlthough St ark s c laimsin his M oti on that th eJuly

25 , 2 00 6 o rder “wa s n e ver s ent to 1 petitioner until long a fter theten day period to file a

notice of a

ppeal,”he quotes the July 25, 2006 order

in its entirety

in his August 3, 2006 motion for re consideration, which was denied on August 29, 2006. 3 later o n Ja n u ar y 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 , S tark s f il ed a n o ti ce o f a p p ea l o f th e d istrict co u rt’s A ugus t29, 2006 or de r . T hi s C our ts ua s pont e di s m i s s e d the appe a l f orl a c k of ju r is d ic tio n b e c a u s e th e J a n u a ry 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 n o tic e o f ap p e a l w a s u n tim e ly f

ile d . S ta r k s s o u g h t r e c o n s id e r a tio n f r o m th is C o u r t, w h ic h w a s a ls o d e n ie d . F ourm onths l a t e ron M a y 31, 2007, S t a rks f i l e d a not i c e of

appe a l of

the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s J u ly 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 o r d e r . O n J u ly 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 , th is C o u r t s u a s p o n te di sm i ss ed thatappeal for l ac k o f j uri sdi ct i on because the no t i ce of appeal w as unt i m e l y f

i l e d. O n M a y 31, 2007, S t a r ks a l s o f i l e d a “ M ot i on t o A m e nd O r de rD e ny i ng M ot i on unde r§ 3582( c ) ( 2) orA l t e rna t i ve l y P e t i t i one r ’ s 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) M ot i on for R etroac t i ve A pp l i ca t i on of A m endm ent50 5” (“ M ot i on ”) i n the di stri ct c our t , w hi c h i s the s ubj e c tof the pr e s e ntappe a l . S t a rks ’ s M ot i on a r gue d tha the w a s e n title d to a n a m e n d m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s J u ly 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 o r d e rb e c a u s e h is ab ility to tim e ly ap p e a l th a t o r d e rw a s im p e d e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f a ilu r e to not i f y hi m of i t s J ul y 25, 2006 a nd A ugus t29, 2006 or de r s . S t a rks ’ s M ot i on 1 r e q u e s te d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t “r e - d e n y ” h is § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o tio n s o h e c o u ld p u r s u e a n ap p e a l. A lte rn a tiv e ly , h e r e q u e s te dth a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a llo w h im toStarks states in his reply brief on a

ppeal that heis seekingto appeal the district court’s 2 June 26, 2007 order, not the district court’ s July 25, 2006 order

that denied his § 3582(c )(2) motion on the merits. However , Starks devotes ne arly all of the discussion in his briefs on appeal to the merits of his § 3582(c)( 2) motion. Bec ause w e lac k jurisdiction to review the dis tric t c ourt ’sJuly

25 , 2 00 6 o rder, a s o utl ine d in thi s Cour t’ s July 24 , 2 00 7 o rder, wede c lin eto consider the se arguments. See F ed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1) (A)( i) (“[A] defenda nt’s notice of a

ppeal must be filed in the district court within 10 days after . . . the entry

of either the judgment or the order beingappealed . . . .”) . 4 r e f ile h is o r ig in a l § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o tio n to g iv e h im a “f u ll a n d f a ire v a lu a tio n ” o f

it. On J u n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ts u m m a r i l y d e n i e d S t a rk s ’ s Mo t i o n . On J ul y 5, 2007, S t a r ks f

i l e d a t i m e l y not i c e of

appe a l of

the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s J une 26, 20 07 order. 2 I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e n ie d S ta rk s ’s M o tio n . S t a r ks ’ s M ot i on e f

f e c t i ve l y s oughtr e c ons i de r a t i on of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s J ul y 25, 2006 or de r , buthe di d notc i t e orf i l e i tpur s ua ntt o a ny c r i m i na l orc i vi l rul e of procedure. A cr i m i nal defe nd antca nn otse ek re consi dera t i on of the deni al of a § 3 58 2(c) (2) m ot i on , w hi ch i s acont i nu at i on of a c ri m i nal ac t i on , throu gh F eder al R u le o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e 6 0 ( b ) . U n ite d S ta te s v . F a ir , 3 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 1 7 , 1 3 1 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 03 ). In addi t i on , the F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re do no tprov i de a m e c ha ni s m f

orf i l i ng a m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V i c a r i a , 963 F . 2d 1412, 1413- 14 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . W e ha ve r e c ogni z e d m ot i ons f or re consi dera t i on i n cri m i nal ac t i on s onl y i n the cont extof st at i ng thatthey w i l l ac t5

a s t ol l i ng m ot i ons f

orthe 30- da y appe a l r e qui r e m e nti f f i l e d w i thi n the t i m e pe r i od for f i l i ng a not i ce of appeal . S ee i d. B ec ause S t arks fi l ed hi s M ot i on ov ert en m onths a f

t e rthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s J ul y 25, 2006 or de ra nd ni ne m onths a f t e rthe di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d hi s f i r s tm ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

tha tor de ron A ugus t29, 2006, the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y de ni e d S t a rks ’ s M ot i on. F u r th e r m o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e n ie d th e r e lie f s o u g h t b y S ta rk s in hi s M ot i on. F i r s t , S t a r ks ’ s r e que s ttha tthe di s tr i c tc our t“ r e - de ny ” hi s § 3582( c ) ( 2) m o tio n s o h e c o u ld f

ile a tim e ly ap p e a l w a s m e r e ly a n im p r o p e ra tte m p t to c i r c um ve ntthe r e s tr i c t i ons i n F e de r a l R ul e of A ppe l l a t e P r oc e dur e 4( b) f orf i l i ng a tim e ly ap p e a l. S e e J a c k s o n v . C r o s b y , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 2 9 0 , 1 2 9 6 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. de ni e d, ___ U . S . ___, 127 S . C t . 240 ( 2006) ( c onc l udi ng tha tpe t i t i one rc oul d not “g a in a s e c o n d c h a n c e a t atim e ly ap p e a l” th r o u g h a F e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e 6 0 ( b ) m o tio n r e q u e s tin g d is tr ic t c o u r t to r e e n te rits o r d e rd e n y in g h is h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n ) . S e c ond, hi s r e que s ttha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta l l ow hi m t o r e f i l e hi s § 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on a nd r e c ons i de ri tw a s ba rr e d by the l a w - of - the - c a s e doc tr i ne . U nde rthe l aw -of- the-c as e doctri ne, “ an i ss ue deci ded aton e s t age of a c as e i s bi nd i ng atl at er s t a ge s of the s a m e c a s e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E s c oba r - U rr e go, 110 F . 3d 1556, 1560 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . “ [ A ] l e ga l de c i s i on m a de a tone s t a ge of the l i t i ga t i on,Th elaw- of -t he -c a sedo c trinedo e s n ot a pp ly wh ere : ( 1) new evidenc ethat is 3 substantially

different is presented; (2) inter veningcontrollingauthority has madeapplicablea c ontrary le g al de c isi on ; or

(3 ) t hede c isi on

wa s c le arly

erron e ou s a

nd would wo rk a manif e st injusti ce. E scobar-Urreg o, 110 F.3d at 1561. Starks has not argued that any of these ex ceptions apply here . 6 unc ha l l e nge d i n a s ubs e que ntappe a l w he n the oppor tuni ty e xi s t e d, be c om e s the l aw of the ca se for f

uture s t ages of the sa m e l i t i gat i on , and the part i es ar e dee m ed t o ha ve w a i ve d the r i ghtt o c ha l l e nge tha tde c i s i on a ta l a t e rt i m e . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m a r k s o m itte d ) . H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d S ta rk s ’s § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o tio n o n th e m e r its in its J u ly 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 o r d e r , a n d S ta r k s f a ile d to f ile a tim e ly ap p e a l o f

th a t o r d e r . U nd erthe l aw -of- the-c as e doctri ne, S t arks w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o chal l enge the di stri ct court ’ s deni al of hi s § 35 82 (c )( 2) m ot i on ata l at erst age of the l i t i gat i on , w hi ch w as ef fe ct i vel y the re l i ef

he soug hti n h i s M ot i on . E ven i f the di stri ctcourthad a llo w e d h im to r e f

ile h is § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o tio n , th e la w - o f - th e - c a s e d o c tr in e w o u ld ha ve ba rr e d the di s tr i c tc our tf r om r e c ons i de r i ng the l e ga l de c i s i ons i n i t s J ul y 25, 20 06 order. 3 T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e n ie d S ta rk s ’s M o tio n . AF F I RME D.