FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL12 , 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- 15716 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 0 - 0 0 1 2 6 - CR- T- 3 0 - TBM 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 L A R R Y L E O N A R D W A L D E N , J 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l12, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L arryL eonard W al den, Jr . , a f eder al pri soner s ervi ng a 151 -m on th sent ence ,2

ap p e a l s p r o s e th e d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n t o r e d u c e h i s s e n t e n c e . Af t e rr e v i e w, we a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D A f te rp le a d in g g u ilty , W a ld e n w a s c o n v ic te d o f c o n s p ir a c y to d is tr ib u te c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd 846. O n F e brua ry 27, 2001, the f i na l j udgm e ntw a s e nt e r e d i n W a l de n’ s c r i m i na l c a s e . T he r e a f t e r , on J une 13, 20 01 , W al den fi l ed a pro se m ot i on for l ea ve t o fi l e a n o ut -of- t i m e not i ce of appeal a nd r e que s tf

orappoi ntm e ntof

c ouns e l . W a l de n’ s m ot i on a l l e ge d i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance of coun se l base d o n h i s a tt orney’ s f ai l i ng t o fi l e ano t i ce of appeal as W a l de n i ns truc t e d. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m ot i on w i thoutpr e j udi c e , not i ng tha tW a l de n’ s c l a i m s s houl d be br oughti n a28 U . S . C . § 2255 m ot i on. In 20 02 , W al den fi l ed a pro se § 2 25 5 m ot i on , al l egi ng thathi s tri al coun se l had b ee n i neff

ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o fi l e ano t i ce of appeal . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed W al den’ s § 22 55 m ot i on , fi nd i ng thathi s c l ai m w as w i tho utm er i ti n l i gh tof the ap p e a l w a iv e rin W a ld e n ’s p le aa g r e e m e n t. I n 2005, W a l de n f

i l e d pr o s e the i ns t a nt“ B l a ke l y M ot i on f oraR e duc t i on of S ent ence . ” C i t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), W a ld e n ’s m o tio n a lle g e d th a t h is s e n te n c e v io la te d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts because the se nt enci ng courthad i ncre as ed hi s s ent ence base d o n extra -ver di ctWhether a c ourt ha s juri sdic tio n o ver a

pa rticula r c a seis a qu e sti on of law sub je c t to 1 plenar y review. United States v. Stossel, 348 F.3d 1320, 1321 (11 Cir. 2003). th 3 f a c t s , s uc h a s drug qua nt i ty a nd w he the rW a l de n ha d obs truc t e d j us t i c e . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed W al den’ s m ot i on t o reduce hi s s ent ence , fi nd i ng thati tl ac ked j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) b e c a u s e W a l d e n ’ s s e n t e n c e h a d b e c o me f i na l . A l t e rna t i ve l y c ons trui ng W a l de n’ s m ot i on a s as uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on, the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thati tw as prec l ud ed fr om grant i ng W al den rel i ef b e c a u s e ( 1 ) W a ld e n h a d n o t s h o w n th a t h e r e c e iv e d p e rm is s io n f r o m th is C o u r t to br i ng as uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on, a nd ( 2) W a l de n w oul d be unl i ke l y t o s a t i s f y the c r ite r iaf o rs u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n s b e c a u s e B o o k e rw a s n o t r e tr o a c tiv e ly ap p l i cab l e t o co l l at eral p ro ceed i n g s. W al den fi l ed a m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on , ar gu i ng , am on g o ther thi ng s, that the di stri ctcourtshou l d l i bera l l y c on strue hi s m ot i on as on e t o reduce hi s s ent ence p u rs u an t t o 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). T h e d istrict co u rt su m m ar il y d en ied W ald en ’s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n app ea l , W al den argues thatthe di stri ctcourthad j uri sdi ct i on t o m od i fy hi s s e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 1) ( B ) a nd ( c ) ( 2) . N e i the rpr ovi s i on 1 of § 3 58 2 i dent i fi ed by W al den con fe rr ed j uri sdi ct i on . T hu s, al tho ug h the di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t c o n s tru e W a ld e n ’s m o tio n a s a§ 3 5 8 2 m o tio n , e v e n if it h a d , it w o u ldWalden’s contention that Ar ticle III , Section 2 of the Constituti on permits the district 2 court to modify

his sentenceas re quired by § 3582(c) (1)(b) is without merit. That constitutional prov isi on is m ere ly a g eneral gra

nt o f j urisdic tio n tothefe deral c ourt s a nd do e s n ot expre ssly grant c ourts authority

to modify

a prisoner ’s sentenc e af

ter it has been imposed. 4 ha ve be e n c orr e c ti n de ny i ng the m ot i on. M or e s pe c i f

i c a l l y , § 3582( c ) ( 1) ( B ) pr ovi de s tha tadi s tr i c tc our tm a y not m o d if y ate rm o f

im p r is o n m e n t o n c e im p o s e d e x c e p t to th e e x te n t m o d if ic a tio n is

“ e xpr e s s l y pe rm i tt e d by s t a tut e ” orby F e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 35. 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 1) ( B ) . R ul e 35 a l l ow s ac our tt o c orr e c tapr i s one r ’ s s e nt e nc e ( 1) w i thi n seven days of se nt enci ng i f i tre sul t ed fr om ar i thm et i ca l , t ec hn i ca l or cl ea r error, or (2) upo n a subst ant i al as si st ance m ot i on fi l ed by the go vernm ent . S ee F ed. R . C ri m . P . 35 (a ), (b). W al den’ s m ot i on w as no tfi l ed w i thi n seven days af t er hi s s ent enci ng , and the go vernm entnever f i l ed a s ub st ant i al as si st ance m ot i on . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. D i az -C l ark, 29 2 F . 3d 13 10 , 13 17 (11 C i r. 20 02 ) ( expl ai ni ng that th the s e ve n- da y l i m i t a t i on of R ul e 35( a ) i s aj ur i s di c t i ona l r e s tr i c t i on) . T hus , the 2 di stri ctcourtcoul d n othave grant ed W al den’ s m ot i on un der § 35 82 (c )( 1)(B ). N orc oul d the di s tr i c tc our tha ve a c t e d pur s ua ntt o § 3582( c ) ( 2) . S e c t i on 3582( c ) ( 2) pe rm i t s the di s tr i c tc our tt o m odi f y ade f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e onl y i f the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on s ubs e que nt l y l ow e r s the appl i c abl e s e nt e nc i ng r a nge p u rsu an tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 9 9 4 (o ). S ee 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ). “ B o o k er i s a S upr e m e C our tde c i s i on, notar e tr oa c t i ve l y appl i c abl e gui de l i ne a m e ndm e ntby the5

S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on. T he r e f or e , B ooke ri s i nappl i c abl e t o § 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M oreno, 42 1 F . 3d 12 17 , 12 20 (11 C i r. 20 05 ). th W a ld e n a ls o a r g u e s th a t, e v e n if p r o p e r ly c o n s tru e d a s a§ 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , h is m ot i on s houl d ha ve be e n gr a nt e d. H e c ont e nds tha tB ooke r ’ s hol di ng s houl d be appl i ed re troac t i vel y i n col l at er al proceedi ng s bec ause i ti s nov el and a cl ea r bre ak f r o m p a s tl a w. W a l de n i gnor e s the f

a c ttha thi s c ons true d § 2255 m ot i on i s s uc c e s s i ve a nd tha the ha s notr e que s t e d l e a ve f r om thi s C our tt o f

i l e as uc c e s s i ve m ot i on. S e e 28 U . S . C . § 2255 ( c r os s - r e f e r e nc i ng 28 U . S . C . § 2244) . W i thouta uthor i z a t i on f r om thi s C ou rt , the di stri ctcourtl ac ked j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der W al den’ s s ucce ss i ve § 2255 m ot i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H ol t , 417 F . 3d 1172, 1175 ( 11 C i r . 2005) th ( c onc l udi ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y de ni e d as uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on w here thi s C ou rtdi d n otautho ri ze i t ). In any e vent , the di stri ctcourtw as corr ec t tha tB ooke rdoe s notappl y r e tr oa c t i ve l y on c ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w . S e e I n r e A nde r s on, 39 6 F . 3d 13 36 , 13 39 -40 (11 C i r. 20 05 ) ( se cond § 2 25 5 m ot i on ); V ar el a v. U ni t ed th S ta te s , 4 0 0 F .3 d 8 6 4 , 8 6 6 - 6 7 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( in itia l § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n ) . th F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin d e n y in g W a ld e n ’s “B la k e ly M o tio n f

o rR e d u c tio n o f

S e n te n c e .” A FFI R M ED .