FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 4 , 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- 12616 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 9 1 - 0 0 2 1 1 - CR- J - 1 0 - G RJ 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 F R E D E R I C K F . B U L L A R D , a .k .a . P ap e r , a .k .a . E d w a r d T y r o n e C o llin s , 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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 4, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C UR I AM :2

A j ury f ound appe l l a ntgui l ty of c ons pi r i ng t o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne be tw e e n the F a l l of 1986 a nd N ove m be r1991, a nd the c our ts e nt e nc e d hi m unde rthe S ent enci ng R ef

orm A ctof 19 84 and the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes prom ul gat ed there un der t o l i fe i m pri sonm ent . W e a ff i rm ed hi s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . U ni t ed S ta te s v . B u lla r d , 8 3 F .3 d 4 3 5 ( T ab le ) , 1 1 th C ir . ( F la .) , A p r0 4 , 1 9 9 6 . I n J u ly 1 9 9 8 , ap p e lla n t m o v e d th e c o u r t to m o d if y h is s e n te n c e p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3582( c ) ba s e d on a n i nt e rve ni ng m odi f i c a t i on of

the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . T he co u rtg ran t ed th e m o t i o n , an d red u ced ap p el l an t ’ s sen t en ce t o 4 8 0 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nt . A ppe l l a ntappe a l e d, a nd w e a f f i rm e d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ul l a r d, 25 1 F . 3d 16 1 (T abl e) , 11 th C i r. (F l a. ), June 08 , 20 01 . W hi l e thi s app ea l w as pe ndi ng, appe l l a ntm ove d the di s tr i c tc our tt o va c a t e hi s s e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2255, c ont e ndi ng tha thi s s e nt e nc e w a s unc ons t i tut i ona l unde rA ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 124 S . C t . 2438 ( 2000) . T he c our tde ni e d hi s m ot i on, and w e a ff

i rm ed, ho l di ng thatA pp re nd i af forded appel l antno re l i ef on col l at er al att ac k. U ni t ed S t at es v. B ul l ar d, 31 F ed. A pp x. 94 1 (T abl e) , 11 th C i r. (F l a. ), F eb 0 4 , 2 0 0 2 . L a s tly , in M a r c h 2 0 0 5 , ap p e lla n t m o v e d th e c o u r t f o rr e lie f f r o m h is s e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o f

orm e rF e d. R . C r i m . P . 35( a ) , a ga i n c ha l l e ngi ng the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of

hi s m ot i on— appa r e nt l y unde rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U .S . ____ , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . H e c o n te n d e d th a t th e f o rm e rru le w a s ap p lic ab le3

b e c au s e th e c o n s p ir a c y w ith w h ic h h e w a s c h a r g e d b e g a n b e f o r e th e e f

f e c tiv e d a te o f th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s , i.e ., N o v e m b e r1 , 1 9 8 7 . T h e c o u r t d e n ie d h is m ot i on. I tdi d s o w i thoutpa s s i ng on w he the rf orm e rR ul e 35( a ) appl i e d. I ns t e a d, a s s um i ng tha tthe rul e appl i e d, the c our t , c i t i ng I n r e A nde r s on, 396 F . 3d 1336, 13 40 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), deni ed appel l ant ’ s m ot i on on the grou nd thatB oo ker does notappl y r e tr oa c t i ve l y t o c a s e s on c ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w . A ppe l l a ntnow appe a l s the d e n i a l o f h i s mo t i o n . W e a f

f i rm. I n appe a l i ng hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e , appe l l a ntdi d notc ha l l e nge the c our t ’ s i m pos i t i on of

hi s s e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o the S e nt e nc i ng R e f orm A c ta nd the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . I n othe rw or ds , he di d notc ont e nd tha tthe c ons pi r a c y of w h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d c e a s e d p r io rto N o v e m b e r1 , 1 9 8 7 , s u c h th a t h e s h o u ld have been sent ence d u nd erpre- G ui del i nes l aw . T he di stri ctcourtthere fore l ac ked autho ri ty und erthe C ri m i nal R ul es t o ent ert ai n app el l ant ’ s f orm erR ul e 35(a) m ot i on ( w hi c h i s notappl i c abl e t o s e nt e nc e s i m pos e d unde rthe G ui de l i ne s ) . T he rul e tha tdoe s appl y i s the c urr e ntve r s i on of R ul e 35 ( e f

f e c t i ve D e c e m be r1, 2002) w h ic h s ta te s th a t th e c o u r t m a y c o rr e c t as e n te n c e th a t “r e s u lte d f r o m a r ith m e tic a l, t e c h n i c a l , o ro th e rc l e a re rr o r ” w i th i n 7 d a y s a f t e rs e n t e n c i n g . Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 35 (a ) ( 20 05 ). T hi s 7-dayre qu i re m enti s j uri sdi ct i on al . U ni t ed S t at es v. D i az C l ark, 29 2 F . 3d 13 10 . 13 17 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). H ence , the courtshou l d h ave deni ed4

appel l ant ’ s m ot i on for l ac k o f j uri sdi ct i on . In pass i ng , w e a gree w i th the courtthat B ooke rpr ovi de s no r e l i e f on c ol l a t e r a l a tt a c k. AF F I RME D.