[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-12405

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20879-WPD-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

ANTONIO DE JESUS MUNOZ-RODRIGUEZ, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 17, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-12405 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Antonio Munoz-Rodriguez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court’s dismissal of his motion to reconsider his sentence for lack of 

jurisdiction. Munoz-Rodriguez moved to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c), alleging that the district court unconstitutionally increased his 

mandatory-minimum sentence by sixty months under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) when it 

found that he brandished a firearm during his crime. According to MunozRodriguez, the Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 

___, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), makes clear that only a jury may determine facts 

which increase the mandatory-minimum sentence. Upon review of the record and 

consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

We review de novo the question of whether the district court has jurisdiction 

to modify a sentence. See United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1194 n.9 (11th 

Cir. 2010). Under § 3582(c), the district court may only modify a sentence in three 

limited circumstances: (1) on motion of the Bureau of Prisons to reduce a 

prisoner’s remaining time in custody; (2) in the case of a defendant whose 

guideline range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission; or (3) to the 

extent otherwise provided by statute or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. 

Rule 35 allows the court to (a) correct an arithmetical, technical, or other clear 

error within fourteen days of sentencing, or (b) reduce a sentence based on 

Case: 14-12405 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

substantial assistance upon the government’s motion within one year of sentencing. 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35.

The district court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider Munoz-Rodriguez’s 

sentence under § 3582(c). The motion for reconsideration was not made by the 

BOP or the government. Munoz-Rodriguez’s motion was brought more than 

fourteen days after sentencing. Finally, his motion did not concern a guideline 

range that had been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission.1

 Thus, 

Munoz-Rodriguez’s motion was based on an alleged constitutional violation to 

which § 3582(c) is inapplicable. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 

(11th Cir. 2000). As suggested by the district court, his constitutional challenge 

might be properly made through another procedural vehicle, such as a timely 

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Independent of that possibility, § 3582(c) is not 

available to Munoz-Rodriguez on his current challenge.

AFFIRMED.

 

1

The United States notes in its brief before this Court that, effective November 1, 2014, 

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines may reduce the base offense level given to 

Munoz-Rodriguez’s sentence from 26 to 24. See United States Sentencing Guidelines

§ 2D1.1(c)(8). While the amendment became effective after the motion at issue here was filed 

and therefore does not impact our holding in this case, it may offer Munoz-Rodriguez relief in a 

future motion under § 3582(c)(2).

Case: 14-12405 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 3 of 3