[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 98 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :9 7- cr-0 02 13 -EAK-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us HANDY BAILEY, JR ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 25 , 20 13 ) Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-13986 Date Filed: 03/25/2013 Page: 1 of 4Han dy Bail ey , Jr. ap pe al s t he di stric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o c orrect

hi s t ot al 36 0- m on th sen te nc e. Becaus e we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt l ack ed juri sd ic ti on ov er Ba il ey ’s m ot io n, we af firm . In19 97 , Bai le y

was c on vi ct edof t wo co un ts of p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne ba se . Becau se Bai le y ha d p rio r co nv ic ti on s, the go ve rn m en t fil edanin fo rm at io n a ndno ti ce und er 2 1 U.S.C. § 85 1 t o s eeken ha nc edpe na lt ie s. The co urt u lt im at el y

sen te nc edBai le y

to 36 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Thi s co urt affi rm edth e co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es on di rectap pe al . The reaf te r, Bai le y

fil ednu m ero us un su cces sf ul po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io ns . He th enfil edth e in st an t m ot io n e nt it le d “Nun c Pro Tun c Mo ti onforCo rrec ti on of anIss ue Requi redNow Th atW as Requi redThen (Bei ng Tim e o f Sen te nc e) as th e Co urt Lac ke d J ur is di ct io n t o Impos e th e Sen te nc e.” Inth is m ot io n, as in pre vi ou s m ot io ns , Bai le y

ch al le ng edth e p ro pr ie ty of th e § 85 1 n ot ic e an d t he di stric t co urt’s jur is di ct io n t o s en te nc e h im ba se d o n a n e nh an cedpe na lt y . The d is tri ct co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n. Ba il ey no w app eal s. W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly exer ci se d juris di ct io n ov er a cl ai m . Uni te d Sta tes v. Di az -Cl ark, 29 2 F .3d13 10 , 13 15 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Whe re a d is tri ctco urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on , we hav e juri sd ic ti on on ly for the li m it ed pu rp os e o f co rrec ti ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s erro r in en te rta in in g t he cla im . Se e 2 Case: 11-13986 Date Filed: 03/25/2013 Page: 2 of 4W

il li ams v. Ch atman , 51 0 F .3d12 90 , 12 94 -9 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c), the di st ric t co urt h as juri sd ic ti onto m od ify an im po se d t erm

of i m pr is on m en t o nl y

un de r sp eci fic cir cu m st an ces . Diaz- Clark, 29 2 F .3dat 1 31 5- 16 . For e xa m pl e, a fed eral pri so ne r se ek in g re li ef fro m hi s co nv ic ti on or c on fin em en t m ay fil e, pu rs uantto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5, a m ot io n t o va cat e in th e d is tri ctco urt. Sa wye r v. Ho lder , 32 6 F .3d13 63 , 13 65 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). A pri so ne r m ay

no t, h owe ve r, fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on un de r § 2 25 5 u nl es s an d u nt il we gr an t ce rti fic at io n. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 (h ); Diaz- Clark, 29 2 F .3dat 1 31 6. Ab se ntsu chpe rm is si on , th e d is tri ctco urt l ack s ju ris di ct io n t o ad dr es s t he pe ti ti on an d m us t d is m is s i t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ho lt , 41 7 F .3d11 72 , 11 75 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e wil l l oo k b ey on d t he lab el of apri so ne r’s po st co nv ic ti on m ot io n t o d et erm in e if he is , insubs ta nc e, se ek in g re li ef und er § 22 55 . Gil be rt v. Uni te d Sta tes , 64 0 F .3d12 93 , 13 23 (11 thCir . 20 11 ) ( en ba nc ). To o bt ai n asen te nc in g e nh an cem en t b as edup on a de fen da nt ’s pri or co nv ic ti on , th e g ov ern m en t m us t co m pl y with the no ti ce re qu ire m en ts setforth in 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 (a)( 1) . Pere z v. Un it ed

St at es , 24 9 F .3d12 61 , 12 64 (11 thCir . 20 01 ). Bu t § 85 1 d oe s n otit se lf p ro vi de a m ech an is m fora co ll at eral att ackup on a se nt en ce, n or

do es itgra ntth e d is tri ctco urt p owe r to alt er a s en te nc e. Se e ge ne ra ll y 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 . Rath er, a p ris on er’s cl ai m th athi s s en te nc e was 3 Case: 11-13986 Date Filed: 03/25/2013 Page: 3 of 4im

po se d i n v io la ti on of § 85 1( a) i s co gn iz ab le un de r § 2 25 5. Se e Har ris v. Un it ed St at es , 14 9 F .3d13 04 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). To t he ex te ntBai le y ’s m ot io ns ch al le ng edth e v al id it y of h is 36 0- m on th se nt en ce b as edup on th e juri sd ic ti on al ad equa cy of t he § 8 51 enha nc em en t, i t sh ou ldha ve be enco ns tru edby the di st ric t co urt as a § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Be cau se Bai le y ha s fi le d p rev io us un su cces sf ul § 2 25 5 m ot io ns , he was requi redto see k ou r pe rm is si on be fo re fi li ng a su cces si ve ap pl ic at io n. He fa il edto do so . The refo re, t o t he ex te ntBai le y rai se d c la im s t ha t s ho ul d h av e b een rai se d i n h is fir st§ 2 25 5 m ot io n, t he di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e d is m is se d t ho se cla im s fo r la ck of subjec t m atte r juri sd ic ti on as o pp os edto de nyin g t he m . Butwe co ns tru e th e di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o n t he m eri ts as adi sm is sa l an d a ffi rm be cau se th is is a di st in ct io n t ha t m ak es no di ffer en ce i n t hi s ca se . Se e Ca ni v. Uni te d Sta tes , 33 1 F.3 d 1 21 0, 1 21 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (co ns tru in g d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l fo r la ckof juri sd ic ti on as d en ia l o n t he m eri ts an d a ffi rm in g b ecau se th e d is ti nc ti on be twee n de ni al an d d is m is sa l m ak es no si gn ifi can t d iff eren ce). AFFIRMED.

4

Case: 11-13986 Date Filed: 03/25/2013 Page: 4 of 4