United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 29, 2012

*

Decided April 13, 2012

Before

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 11-3192

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RODRIGUEZ D. JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 00-CR-30070

Sue E. Myerscough,

Judge.

O R D E R

Rodriguez Jones was convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. See 21

U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. At sentencing, the district court held Jones responsible for 90 kilograms

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

*

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(c).
No. 11-3192 Page 2

of crack cocaine and, in light of this massive quantity, sentenced him to 40 years’

2

imprisonment. After we affirmed his sentence on direct appeal, United States v. Jones, 275

F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2001), Jones petitioned for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and twice moved

for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Each time, the district court

denied the respective petition or motion, and we affirmed its judgment. See, e.g., United

States v. Jones, 365 F. App’x 29 (7th Cir. 2010). Jones then filed a “motion to clarify drug

amount,” in which he attempted once again to relitigate the sentencing court’s finding that

he was responsible for 90 kilograms of crack. The district court, unable to identify any rule

or statute that would permit it to modify Jones’s sentence, dismissed the motion for want of

jurisdiction. The court reasoned that even if it construed the motion as a § 2255 petition, it

nonetheless lacked jurisdiction because Jones had not received permission to file a

successive petition.

Jones argues for the first time on appeal that his motion should be construed as a

petition for a writ of error coram nobis. This writ is an extraordinary remedy whereby an

individual released from custody may nonetheless challenge a prior conviction. See United

States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685, 697–98 (7th Cir. 2007). But Jones challenges the very sentence

for which he is now imprisoned, and “a petitioner cannot obtain coram nobis relief from

the conviction and sentence giving rise to present custody.” Guyton v. United States, 453

F.3d 425, 427 (7th Cir. 2006). In substance, Jones’s motion is a request to modify the

judgment under Rule 35(a), but his 14-day window to file such a motion with the district

court closed in 2001. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 35(a). Lacking any statutory authorization to

consider the motion, the district court correctly dismissed it. See United States v. Campbell,

324 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 2003) (Easterbrook, J., concurring.).

AFFIRMED.

The typical crack-cocaine dose (i.e., a “crack rock”) sold to an addict weighs

2

between 10–120 milligrams, so this was enough for approximately 900,000 doses of crack.

See DRUGS AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE FACT SHEETS, NHTSA,

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cocain.htm (last visited Feb. 10,

2012).