FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 14, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 52 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 4- cr-0 03 48 -SCB -TGW -3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us STEVEN CATAL ANO, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 1 4, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: St ev enCat al an o, p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io ns to rev is ithi s p ris on sen te nc e th atwas i m po se d app ro xi m at el y

th ree yearsearl ie r, aft er a ju ry fou ndhi m

gu il ty of co ns pi racy to c omm itrack et eeri ng . He co nt en ds th athe fil edhi s m ot io ns pu rs ua ntto 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) an d ra is es th e subs ta nt iv e cl ai m

th athi s s en te nc e was pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co urt fa il edto co nduc t an in di vi du al iz edass es sm en t. The go ve rn m en t res po nd s tha t, p ur su an t t o t he un am bi gu ou s l an gu ag e o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c), t he di st ric t co urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er Ca ta la no ’s m ot io ns to rev is ithi s se nt en ce.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo qu es ti on s co nc ern in g t he juri sd ic ti on of t he di st ric t co urt.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Ol iv er , 14 8 F .3d12 74 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Whe th er th e d is tri ctco urt h as th e au th or it y to m od ify a cus to di al sen te nc e aft er i t h as be en im po se d i s a q ue st io n o f la w subjec t t o de no vo rev ie w. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ph il li ps , 59 7 F .3d11 90 , 11 94 n.9 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). W e rec en tl y

he ldth at“ [t]he au th or it y of adi st ric t co urt t o m od ify an im pr is on m en t s en te nc e [o nc e itha s b een im po se d] is na rro wly li m it edby stat ut e”: Sp eci fic al ly, [1 8 U.S.C.] § 3 58 2( c) p ro vi de s t ha t a c ou rt m ay no t m od ify an i m

pr is on m en t s en te nc e ex cep t i n t he se th ree ci rcu m st an ces : (1 ) whe re t he Bu reau of P ris on s h as fil eda m ot io n a nd ei th er ex tra or di na ry

an d c om pe ll in g re as on s warran t a r educ ti on or th e d efen da ntis at l eas t 7 0 years o ldan d m eet s ce rta inothe r requi rem en ts , se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(1 )(A); (2) wher e an ot he r st atut e o r Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 5 e xp res sl y pe rm it s a se nt en ce m od ifi cat io n, se e id
. § 3 58 2( c)(1 )(B) ; o r (3 ) whe re a de fen da ntha s b een sen te nc edto a te rm of i m pr is on m en t b as edona 2se nt en ci ng ran ge th atwas s ub se qu en tl y lo weredby the Co m

m is si on an d c ert ai n o th er re qu ire m en ts are m et , se e id
. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Id
. at11 94 -9 5; se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c). As t o t he sec on d c irc um st an ce al lo win g a se nt en ce m od ifi cat io n s etforth in § 3 58 2, “ [t]he un am bi gu ou s l an gu ag e o f § 3 58 2( c)(1 )(B) in di cat es th at , abs en t o th er ex pr es s s ta tu to ry au th or it y , m od ifi cat io n o f an im

pr is on m en t s en te nc e canon ly be d on e p ur su an t t o R ul e 3 5.” Phi ll ip s , 59 7 F .3dat 1 19 5. Fu rth er, a d is tri ctco urt h as no “ in he ren t au th or it y ” to m od ify a sen te nc e th atha s al read y be enim po se d. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Di az -Cl ark , 29 2 F .3d13 10 , 13 15 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (h ol di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt erred in co nc lu di ng th atitha d “ in he ren t p owe r” t o c orrecta se nt en ce i t h adim po se d s ix y ears earl ie r an d wh ic h i t v ie wedto be il le ga l). W e co nc lu de th atno ne of t he cir cu m st an ces all owi ng a di st ric t co urt t o m od ify a sen te nc e are pre se ntin th e in st an t ca se . The d is tri ctco urt re co gn iz ed th atitha d n o aut ho rit y

to reco ns id er Ca ta lano ’s sen te nc e b y st at in g t ha t i t

“ can no t” reco ns id er t he m ot io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt was co rrec t t ha t i t l ack ed juri sd ic ti on an d t hu s we a ffi rm . 1 AFFIRMED.

Catalano’s r equest for

oral a rgument is denied. 1 3