FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT OC TO B ER 4 , 2005 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. 04- 15275 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 9 6 - 0 0 0 6 5 - C R - 3 - L A C - MD 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 U R T I S C A S T R A , a .k .a . A le x J o h n s o n , a .k .a . R a n d y B r e w e r , 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 orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 4, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

C ur t i s C a s tr a , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2 m ot i on t o m od i fy the t erm s of hi s i m pri sonm ent , i m po se d aft era j ury c on vi ct ed hi m for c on spi ra cy t o d i stri bu t e acont rol l ed subst ance , sa l e of a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e , pos s e s s i ng a f i r e a r m i n c onne c t i on w i th a drug c r i m e , a nd unl a w f ul tr a ns por t a t i on of

a f i r e a r m i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841, 846, a nd 18 U . S . C . §§ 924( c ) , 922( g) , r e s pe c t i ve l y . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d C a s tr a ’ s m ot i on a f te rf in d in g th a t it h a d n o ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rit. F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o r th mo r e f u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. F ol l ow i ng hi s c on vi ct i on s, C as traw as se nt ence d t o l i fe i m pri sonm entaf t er the di stri ctcourtfoun d C as tra ’ s t ot al offe nse l evel un der the 19 95 F eder al S e n t e n c i n g Gu i d e l i n e s t o b e 4 0 , a n d f o u n d h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o ry c a t e g o ry t o b e I V, w hi c h pr ovi de d f

ora s e nt e nc i ng r a nge of 360 m onths t o l i f

e . O n di r e c tappe a l , he ar gu ed thatthe evi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rthi s c on vi ct i on , the di stri ct c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is s e v e r a n c e m o tio n s , e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s e v id e n c e , a n d m a d e im p r o p e rr e le v a n t c o n d u c t d e te r m in a tio n s . H is c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s w e r e a f f ir m e d . S u b s e q u e n tly , C a s tr a f

ile d a 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n to v a c a te h is s e n te n c e . I n i t , he r a i s e d tw o i s s ue s : ( 1) hi s c onvi c t i on w a s obt a i ne d a s a r e s ul tof the go vernm ent ’ s vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 01 (c )( 2), m aki ng i ta c ri m e t o o ff erAttache d with Castra’s motion was a letter from the probation off ice indicating that 1 Castra’s criminal history

points were inc orre ctly

calculated, and that, as a re sult of the error, Ca stra ’sc rimin al hi sto ry

c ate g or y sh ould h avebe e n IIIand no t IV. Ho wever, thele tter also indicated that, even at c riminal history cate g ory III , Castra’s guidelines rang e would be 360 3 a ny thi ng of

va l ue t o a pe r s on i n e xc ha nge f ort e s t i m ony , a nd ( 2) i ne f f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. T h e m o tio n w a s d e n ie d o n J a n u a ry 2 5 , 2 0 0 0 . W e s u b s e q u e n t l y d e n i e d h i s c e r t i f i c a t e o f ap p e a l a b i l i ty . We h a v e a l s o d e n i e d two ap p lic a tio n s f

o rle a v e to f

ile a s e c o n d o rs u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . O n A ugus t27, 2004, C a s tr a f i l e d i n di s tr i c tc our tthe pr e s e ntpr o s e “ M ot i on f orM odi f i c a t i on of

S e nt e nc e P ur s ua ntt o T i t l e 18 U . S . C . § 3582( b) ( 2) ( 3) , ( B ) a nd Pu r s u a n tt o Ti t l e 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 7 4 2 ( FRCP) . ” Ca s tr a a r g u e d th a t , u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 3582( c ) ( 2) ( B ) , the c our tha d a uthor i ty “ t o m odi f y a n i m pos e d t e r m of im p r is o n m e n t to th e e x te n t o th e rw is e e x p r e s s ly p e r m itte d b y s ta tu te ,” a n d th a t, in ce rt ai n ci rc um st ance s, a § 35 82 m ot i on i s tre at ed as a § 22 55 m ot i on . C as trathen ar gu ed that , throu gh “ du e di l i gence and l on g i nv es t i gat i on , ” he had di sc ov er ed an e rr o rin th e P S I ’s c a lc u la tio n s o f h is c r im in a l h is to ry p o in ts , a n d th a t, p u r s u a n t to B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531, 159 L . E d. 2d 403 ( 2004) , he w as i m p ro p erl y g i v en a tw o -l ev el en h an cem en tfo r h i s ro l e i n th e o ffen se b ecau se th e f a c t w a s n o t f

o u n d b y a ju ry . T h u s , h e a r g u e d th a t h is o f f e n s e le v e l s h o u ld ha ve be e n 38 a nd hi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory I I , f ora gui de l i ne s ’ r a nge of 262- 327 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . C a s tr a a l s o r e que s t e d a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng. T he 1m o nth s t o l i fe i mp ri s o nm entan d , th er ef o re , th e e rr o r h ad

n o i mp ac to nC as tra ’s s ent en ci n g ran ge or the sentence actually

imposed. Castra also list ed 18 U.S.C. § 3742 as a grounds for modify ing his sentence, but § 3742 2 prov ide s th egroun ds on

whic h a de fendant c an dire c tly

a pp e al hi s sentenc e . Se e18 U. S.C. § 3742(a) . This section does not grant jurisdiction to a district court to review a f inal sentenc e. S ec t i o n3 7 4 2 i s m ent i o n edi n1 8 U. S . C . § 3 5 8 2 , b uto n l y t o cl ari fy th atanap p ea lwi l ln o tch an ge the fact that the def

endant’ s judgment of conviction is a “f inal judgment” for all other purposes. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3582(b)(2) -(3) . Rule 35 provides district courts with the a uthority to corre ct or re duce a

sentenc e when 3 it results from, inter alia, “ arithmetical, technical, or other c lear error,” or upon a substantial assistancemotion by

the g overnment. See Fe d.R.Crim.P . 35. 4 go vernm entw as never as ked t o res po nd and t he di stri ctcourtsum m ar i l y deni ed C a s tr a ’s m o tio n , f

in d in g th a t it h a d n o ju r is d ic tio n . O n appe a l , C a s tr a r e s t a t e s the a r gum e nt s he m a de t o the di s tr i c tc our ta nd c o n te n d s th a t b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in c a lc u la tin g h is s e n te n c e , it c o u ld a s s e r t ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 to c o rr e c t th e e rr o r s .

“ W hether the di stri ctcourthad j uri sdi ct i on t o res ent ence [C as tra ] i s al egal que s t i on s ubj e c tt o pl e na ry r e vi e w . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D i a z - C l a r k, 292 F . 3d 1310, 1 3 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . I n h is o r ig in a l m o tio n , C a s tr a a r g u e d th a t h e w a s e n title d to r e s e nt e nc i ng pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . §§ 3582( b) ( 2) , ( b) ( 3) , a nd ( c ) ( 1) ( B ) . T he 2 s e c t i ons i n 3582( b) c l a r i f y onl y tha ta j udgm e ntof c onvi c t i on i s a f

i na l j udgm e nt n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e f

a c t th a t a s e n te n c e m a y la te rb e m o d if ie d p u r s u a n t to § 3582© ) , on appe a l pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3742, orby the di s tr i c tc our tpur s ua nt t o st atut e or F ed. R . C ri m . P . 35 . S ee 18 U . S . C . §§ 35 82 (b). A s s uch, they c on fe r 35

n o r ig h ts o n a c r im in a l d e f e n d a n t. S e c tio n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) p e r m its a d is tr ic t c o u r t, in i t s di s c r e t i on, t o m odi f

y a s e nt e nc e onl y i f

a uthor i z e d t o do s o by s t a tut e or F e d .R .C r im .P . 3 5 . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . T he di stri ctcourt , up on re vi ew of C as tra ’ s m ot i on t o m od i fyhi s s ent ence , f ound tha ti tha d no j ur i s di c t i on. T o the e xt e nttha ti tf ound s o on the ba s i s of F e d. R . C r i m . P . 35 ( a s s pe c i f i e d unde r§ 3582 ( c ) ( 1) ( B ) ) , i tw a s c or r e c t , a s w e ha ve he l d tha tR ul e 35 i s j ur i s di c t i ona l a nd, unl e s s a di s tr i c tc our ta c tua l l y c or r e c t s the error c om pl ai ned o f w i thi n seven days of the se nt ence bei ng i m po se d, a di stri ct courtl ac ks j uri sdi ct i on t o d o so u nd erR ul e 35(c). S ee D i az -C l ark, 29 2 F . 3d at 1315- 17. T he r e i s no di s put e tha tC a s tr a ’ s s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d y e a r s be f or e the pr e s e ntm ot i on w a s f

i l e d. T hus , a ny m odi f

i c a t i on by the di s tr i c tc our tw oul d ha ve be e n out s i de the s e ve n- da y w i ndow a nd, c ons e que nt l y , voi d f orl a c k of j ur i s di c t i on. I d. a t1317. W e h av e fu rth er h el d th ata d i stri ctco u rth as n o j u ri sd i ct i o n t o m o d i fy a d e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( b ) ( 3 ) , a s th a t p r o v is io n m e r e ly d e f in e s f in a lity . U n ite d S ta te s v . S to s s e l, 3 4 8 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . Th u s , t o th e e x t e n tth a tCa s tr a r e l i e d o n Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 3 5 a n d 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 8 2 ( b ) ( 3 ) a s th e b a s is f o rm o d if y in g h is s e n te n c e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly rul e d tha ti tha d no j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe c l a i m . A l s o, t o the e xt e nttheIt is noted that the merits of Castra’ s claim, i.e., that his criminal history points were 4 incorre ctly

calculated, is a non-c onstitut ional claim and, a s such, ca n be raised on collateral review o nly

wh e n th ealle g e d error

c on sti tut e s a

“ fu ndamental de fe c t which inherently re sults in a completemiscarriag e of justice [or] an omission i nconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair proc e dure .”Di az-C lark , 2 92 F .3 d at 13 16 n. 4. F ur therm ore , tothee xtent Ca stra argue s th at, un d e r B o o k e r an d B l ak e l y, h i s s e nt e n c ew a s i mp ro p e rl y enh an c e d o nf a c t s n o tf o un d b y a j ur y, we ha ve held that ne ither B ooker, nor Blakely, applies retroac tively on collateral review. See Varela v. United States, 400 F .3d 864, 866-67 (11th Cir. 2005) (initial § 2255 proc eeding s); In re Ander son, 396 F.3d 1336, 1339-40 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (sec ond or succ essive applications). 6 d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s tru e d th e m o tio n a s a s u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , it p r o p e r ly di s m i s s e d the m ot i on be c a us e w e ha ve notgr a nt e d pe r m i s s i on t o f i l e s uc h a m o tio n , a n d C a s tr a m u s t, p u r s u a n t to th e A n tite rr o r is m a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A ctof 19 96 , P ub . L . N o. 10 4-32 , 11 0 S t at . 12 14 (199 6), fi l e l ea ve w i th thi s C ou rt for perm i ss i on t o fi l e asucc es si ve m ot i on t o v ac at e und er28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5. S ee 4 D i a z - C l a r k, 292 F . 3d a t1316; s e e a l s o F uga t e v. D e pt . of C or r e c t i ons , 301 F . 3d 12 87 , 12 88 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ) ( “ [t ] he di stri ctcourtl ac ked j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der F ug at e’ s c l ai m because he had no tappl i ed t o thi s c ou rtfor perm i ss i on t o fi l e a succ es si ve appl i ca t i on . ”) . H ow ever , i n d ef

er ence t o C as tra ’ s pro se st atus, 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) do es co n fe r ju risd icti o n fo r a d istrict co u rt to m o d ify th e ter m s o f a d ef en d an t’ s im p r is o n m e n t a n d , th e r e f o r e , to th e e x te n t th a t C a s tr a a r g u e d th a t h e w a s e n title d to m od i fi ca t i on un der § 35 82 (c ), the di stri ctcourt ’ s s um m ary f i nd i ng thati tl ac ked j ur i s di c t i on r e qui r e s f

ur the re xpl a na t i on. S e e S t os s e l , 348 F . 3d a t1322 n. 2 ( not i ng i n di c t a tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tha d no j ur i s di c t i on ove ra pr o s e pr i s one r ’ s m ot i onIt is noted that § 3582(c) motions arecontinuations of criminal procee dings a nd not 5 post-conviction civil actions. See United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 7 w he the rc ons i de r e d unde ri t s a c tua l l a be l of § 3582( b) ( 3) orc ons true d unde ra ny di ff er entst atut ory f

ra m ew ork, i ncl ud i ng § 3 58 2(c) ). U nde r§ 3582( c ) , a di s tr i c tc our tm a y onl y m odi f y a de f e nda nt ’ s t e r m s of i m pr i s onm e nti n l i m i t e d c i r c um s t a nc e s : ( 1) upon m ot i on of the D i r e c t orof

the B ur e a u of

P r i s ons , w hi c h c l e a r l y i s i nappl i c a bl e he r e , or( 2) upon m ot i on of . . . the d e f e n d a n ti f , a n d o n l y i f

, th e Se n t e n c i n g Co mmi s s i o n , p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 9 9 4 ( o ) , lo w e r s th e s e n te n c in g r a n g e , a n d r e d u c in g th e d e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e is c ons i s t e ntw i th the s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s of 18 U . S . C . § 3553 a nd the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on’ s pol i c y s t a t e m e nt s . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 1) - ( 2) . C a s tr a ha s not 5 a l l e ge d tha tthe S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on ha s a m e nde d a nd l ow e r e d hi s s e nt e nc i ng ra ng e a nd , there fore , the grou nd s he r el i es up on ar e e xtra neou s t o § 35 82 (c )’ s s tri ct re qu i re m ent s. A s s uch, C as traw as no tent i t l ed t o the di sc re t i on ary r el i ef of a se nt ence m od i fi ca t i on un der a ny prov i si on of § 3 58 2(c) , and t he di stri ctcourt corr ec t l y f

ou nd thati tl ac ked j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der C as tra ’ s c l ai m . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. B ra vo , 20 3 F . 3d 77 8, 78 1-82 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( ho l di ng thatthe di stri ct courtcorr ec t l y f

ou nd thati thad n o d i sc re t i on t o m od i fy a def endant ’ s s ent ence out s i de the a m e nde d gui de l i ne s r a nge unde r§ 3582( c ) a nd tha tc our t s a r e w i thout ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e re x tr a n e o u s s e n te n c in g is s u e s o u ts id e th e s c o p e o f § 3 5 8 2 ) .8

F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtl ac ked j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rCa s tr a ’ s mo t i o n a n d , th e r e f o r e , a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.