CLD-253 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1552

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

NATE SWINT,

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 94-cr-00276-001)

District Judge: Honorable Jan E. Dubois

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

August 9, 2012

Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN AND COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 29, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Nate Swint appeals the District Court’s orders denying his “Motion Invoking this

Court’s Inherent Power” and his “Motion to Amend.” For the reasons below, we will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s orders.
2

In 1995, Swint was convicted of drug trafficking charges. Based on the drug type 

and quantity and Swint’s two prior convictions, he was sentenced to the mandatory 

minimum sentence of life in prison. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal. 

See No. 96-1870. In 2000, the District Court denied Swint’s motion filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Swint

In October 2011, Swint filed a “Motion Invoking this Court’s Inherent Power.” 

The District Court treated the motion as a § 2255 motion and dismissed it without 

prejudice to Swint filing an application for permission to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. Swint then filed a motion to amend his motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 35 which the District Court denied as moot. Swint filed a notice of appeal.

, No. 98-5788, 2000 WL 987861 (E.D. Pa. 

July 17, 2000). Since his Section 2255 motion was denied, Swint has continually filed 

various motions challenging his conviction and sentence.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Swint stated that his “Motion 

Invoking this Court’s Inherent Power” was based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 452 and 453. Section 

452 provides that the courts of the United States must always be open for filing. Section 

453 provides the oath that judges take. Neither provides Swint a basis for challenging his 

conviction. The District Court did not err in dismissing Swint’s “Motion Invoking this

Court’s Inherent Power” as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion. Nor 
3

does Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 provide Swint a basis to challenge his conviction as such a 

motion would be untimely.1

Moreover, Swint’s challenge to his sentence is without merit. He asserted that at 

the time he committed his current offense in 1994, he was on parole from a conviction for 

which he was sentenced under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 (CSA). Citing 1 

U.S.C. §§ 109 and 110, he appears to argue that these statutes entitle him to be sentenced 

under the CSA instead of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA) for the drug 

trafficking offenses he committed in 1994. Section 109 provides that the repeal of a 

statute will not extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the statute. 

Section 110 provides that acts of limitations shall not be affected by the repeal of a 

statute. Sections 109 and 110 are not relevant to Swint’s sentence. 

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the 

appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by 

the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s orders. See Third 

Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.2

 1 The prior version of Rule 35, which allowed for correction of an illegal sentence at any 

time, does not apply to Swint’s sentence as he committed the offenses after November 1, 

1987.

We caution Swint that future frivolous pleadings or appeals may 

result in sanctions and limitations on his filings.

2 To the extent that a certificate of appealability is needed for the appeal, we decline to 

issue one.