FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL19 , 2006 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. 05- 15564 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 8 0 2 0 4 - C R - D MM 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 D A N I E L D O N A L D S O N , 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 S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l19, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D a ni e l J a y D ona l ds on, a f e de r a l pr i s one rpr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s theFe deral Rule of Criminal of Procedure 32(b) (4)( B) does not exist . Subsection (d)(1) 1 a dd re sse s th ea

pp lic atio n o f t

hesentenc ingguide lin e s a nd thePSI repo rt . F e d. R. C rim. P . 32(d)( 1) (2005) . 2 di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on s f or m i sc l as si fi ca t i on of offe nses and for a m o re d ef in it e s tatem en t. F o r th e r ea so n s th at fo ll o w , w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n s. I . Ba c k g r o und I n 2002, D ona l ds on w a s i ndi c t e d f ordrug of

f e ns e s unde r21 U . S . C . §§ 841 and 8 46 . T he go vernm entno t i fi ed D on al dson thathe fa ce d enh ance d p enal t i es un der § 84 1 b as ed on a 199 7 fel on y drug con vi ct i on . D on al dson had al so been c o n v i c t e d i n 1 9 9 7 f

o rp o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m b y a c o n v i c t e d f

e l o n u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) , b u t th is o f

f e n s e d id n o t f

o r m th e b a s is f

o rth e § 8 4 1 e n h a n c e m e n t. D ona l ds on pl e a de d gui l ty t o tw o c ount s a nd r e c e i ve d the § 841 e nha nc e m e nt . T he pl e a a gr e e m e ntc ont a i ne d a w a i ve rof appe a l pr ovi s i on tha tpr ohi bi t e d D ona l ds on fr om appeal i ng the m anner i n w hi ch hi s s ent ence w as i m po se d even i f i tre sul t ed f r om a n i nc or r e c tappl i c a t i on of the gui de l i ne s , unl e s s the s e nt e nc e e xc e e de d the st atu t o ry m ax i m u m . In 2 0 0 3 , D o n al d so n w as sen t en ced t o 1 7 5 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t. H e d id n o t f ile a d ir e c t ap p e a l. I n 2005, D ona l ds on f

i l e d a pr o s e “ m ot i on pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C r . P . §§ 32 (b)( 4)(B ) a nd (d)( 1) for m i sc l as si fi ca t i on of offe nses . ” D on al dson cl ai m ed that 1F e deral Ruleof Civ il Proc e dure12 (e ), no t Rule7, a dd re sse s mo tio ns fo r a

morede finit e 2 statement. Notably, the Fe deral Rule of Civil Procedure are inapplica ble in criminal proce eding s. Fe d. R. Civ. P . 1. 3 the c our ti m pr ope r l y e nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e be c a us e : ( 1) the j udgm e nta nd c o m m itm e n t o r d e rf

r o m th e 1 9 9 7 c a s e c h a r g e d h im w ith a v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 842( a ) ( 1) , w hi c h c a nnotf or m the ba s i s f

ora n e nha nc e m e ntunde r§ 841; a nd ( 2) the § 9 22 (g) c on vi ct i on fr om 19 97 coul d n otform the basi s f or an enhancem entas he di d notr e c e i ve a s e nt e nc e i n e xc e s s of one y e a r . A c c or di ng t o D ona l ds on, i f the di stri ctcourthad n oti m prop er l y app l i ed the enhancem ent s, he w ou l d h ave f ac ed 9 7 -1 2 1 m o n th s’ i m p ri so n m en t , w h i ch w o u l d h av e b een red u ced t o 6 0 -7 0 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t b a s e d o n h is a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility . O n A u g u st 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , th e d istrict co u rt su m m ar il y d en ied D o n ald so n ’s m o tio n . O n A u g u s t 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , D o n a ld s o n f ile d a m o tio n f

o ra m o r e d e f

in ite st at em entun der F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 7, w hi ch the di stri ctcourt s u m m a r ily d e n ie d o n S e p te m b e r2 2 , 2 0 0 5 . D o n a ld s o n f ile d a n o tic e o f

ap p e a l, 2 s t a m pe d by the di s tr i c tc our ton O c t obe r3, 2005, butda t e d by D ona l ds on on S e p te m b e r2 9 , 2 0 0 5 . I I . D i s c u s s i on A s a n i ni t i a l m a tt e r , the gove r nm e ntc ont e nds tha tw e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on be c a us e D ona l ds on’ s not i c e of appe a l w a s unt i m e l y . F ur the r , the gove r nm e ntSee Haines v. Ker ner, 404 U .S. 519, 520 (1972) (holdingthat pro se pe titioner’s petition 3 should be read liberally

). 4 as se rt s thatthe m ot i on for am ore defi ni t e s t at em entdi d n ott ol l the t i m e i n w hi ch to f ile a n o tic e o f

ap p e a l. W e h a v e a n o b lig a tio n to r e v ie w s u a s p o n te w h e th e rw e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . C a r tw r ig h t, 4 1 3 F .3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 2 9 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . “T h e tim e ly f ilin g o f a n o tic e o f

ap p e a l is a m a n d a to r y p r e r e q u is ite to e x e r c is e o f ap p e lla te j ur i s di c t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 425 F . 3d 987, 989 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ I n a cr i m i nal ca se , a def

endant ’ s not i ce of appeal m ustbe fi l ed i n the di stri ctcourt w i thi n 10 da y s a f

t e r. . . ( i ) the e ntr y of

e i the rthe j udgm e ntorthe or de rbe i ng ap p e a le d . . . .” F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i) . D ona l ds on f

i l e d hi s not i c e of

appe a l on S e pt e m be r29 orO c t obe r3, both of w h ic h a r e c o n s id e r a b ly m o r e th a n te n d a y s a f te rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is i ni t i al m ot i on on A ug ust12 . Y et , construi ng l i bera l l y D on al dson ’ s m ot i on for a m or e de f i ni t e s t a t e m e nt , w e c ons true the m ot i on a s a m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. 3

“ A l though a m ot i on f

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

a di s tr i c tc our tor de ri n a c r i m i na l a c t i on i s note xpr e s s l y a uthor i z e d by the F e de r a l R ul e s of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e , the S upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha tthe t i m e l y f i l i ng of s uc h a m ot i on i n a c r i m i na l a c t i on t ol l s the t i m e f

orf i l i ng a not i c e of

appe a l . . . . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V i c a r i a , 963 F . 2d 14 12 , 14 13 (11t h C i r. 19 92 ) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. D i et er , 42 9 U . S . 6, 8-9We p ro c e e d tothemeri ts even th ough D on a lds on ’s ini tial mo tio n f or re c la ssi fi c atio n is 4 like ly untim e ly un der F e deral Ruleof

Criminal Proc e dure35 , which allo ws a dis tric t c ourt

to correct a sentenc e if the motion is brought within seven days from entry of the judgment, and likely was prohibited by

the appe al waiver in Donaldson’s plea agreement. 5 (1 9 7 6 )). T h erefo re, b ecau se b o th S ep t em b er 2 9 an d O ct o b er 3 are w i th i n t en d ays o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s S e p te m b e r2 2 d e n ia l o f D o n a ld s o n ’s m o tio n f

o rm o r e d e f

in ite s ta te m e n t, w e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth is ap p e a l. N e ve r the l e s s , on the m e r i t s , w e c onc l ude tha tD ona l ds on’ s m ot i on f or m i scl assi fi cat i o n m u stfai l . A l th o u g h , D o n al d so n ch al l en g es h i s sen t en ce b ecau se 4 th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly u s e d h is p r io r§ 9 2 2 ( g ) c o n v ic tio n to e n h a n c e h is s e nt e nc e , the r e c or d s how s tha tthe § 922( g) c onvi c t i on di d notf or m the ba s i s of the e nha nc e m e nt . F ur the r m or e , D ona l ds on’ s c l a i m tha tthe 1997 drug c onvi c t i on coul d n otbe used t o enh ance hi s s ent ence because the 19 97 courtm i st akenl y l i st ed the c onvi c t i on a s unde r§ 842 r a the rtha n a s unde r§ 841 a l s o f a i l s a s D ona l ds on c onc e de s tha the pl e a de d gui l ty t o the § 841 of f e ns e . A m e r e s c r i ve ne r ’ s e r r or l i s t i ng the 1997 c onvi c t i on a s unde r§ 842 doe s notne ga t e the us e of the e n h a n c e m e n t. F i na l l y , be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y de ni e d the m ot i on f or m is c la s s if

ic a tio n , 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 m o tio n f o ra m o r e d e f

in ite st at em ent . A cc ordi ng l y, w e A F F I R M.