1

HLD- 1 1 2 ( Ap r i l2 0 1 0 ) NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1128

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . DAR RY L L . F RA NKL I N, A p p e llan t

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 2- 99- cr - 00238- 1) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Law r ence F. St engel

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir dC ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n dI.O .P . 1 0 .6

A pr i l 30, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges (fil ed : M ay2 4 , 2 0 1 0 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

A ppel l antD arry l Fr ankl i n, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the D i s tr i ctC ourtdeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o corr ecthi s s ent ence . Forthe r eas ons that fo ll o w , w e c o n clud e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rtlack ed juri sd ict ion to co n side r F ran k li n ’sW e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 1 T h e su b seq u en t version o f th e R u le, w h ich w en t i n to ef fe ct be fo re the D istri ct C o u rt 2 den i ed F rankl i n’s m oti on , i ncreased the fil i ng peri od t o 1 4 d ay s. 2 m o ti o n . T h ere fo re, w e w il l vac ate the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.

Fr ankl i n w as convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng the H obbs A ct , 18 U . S. C . § 1951, and r el at ed off

ens es , and r ece i ved a 205- m onth s ent ence . I n N ovember2000, w e af fi rm ed the s ent ence and convi ct i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. Fr ankl i n, 248 F. 3d 1131 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( t abl e) . B etw een 2002 and 2008, Fr ankl i n fi l ed var i ous uns ucce s s ful m ot i ons under F e d e ra l R u le s o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 9 a n d6 0 , a n d2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . M or e r ece nt l y , Fr ankl i n fi l ed a “ m ot i on forcorr ect i on of i l l egals ent ence ” u n d er F ed era l Ru le of

C ri m inal P roc ed u re 3 5 (a). T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied F ran k li n ’s m o tio n , rea so n in g th a t itw a s b o th u n tim e lya n dw ith o u t m e rit. F ra n k lin f iled a tim e ly n o tice o f ap p e a l. 1 “Feder al court s ar e notcourt s of gene r al j ur i s di ct i on; theyhave onl ythe pow erthati s author i zed byA rt i cl e I I I of the C ons t i tut i on and the s t atut es enac t ed by C ongr es s pur s uantther et o. ” B enderv. W i l l i amsportA r ea Sch. D i s t . , 475 U . S. 534, 541 ( 1986) . W e have “an obl i gat i on t o i nqui r e s ua s pont e i nt o [our ] ow n j ur i s di ct i on and, nece s s ar i l y , i nt o the j ur i s di ct i on of the D i s tr i ctC ourtt o ent erthe or deron appea l . ” U n ite dS ta te s v . H ig g s , 5 0 4 F .3 d4 5 6 , 4 5 7 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 7 ).

U n d e r th e v e rs io n o f

R u le 3 5 (a ) i n f

o rc e w h e n F ra n k lin f

ile dh is m o tio n , a m o ti o n to co rrect or red u ce a se n tenc e w as d u e w ith in se v en d ay s o f se n tenc ing . In 23

H i ggs , w e conc l uded thatthe s even- dayt i m e l i m i ti n R ul e 35 w as j ur i s di ct i onal . See 504 F. 3d at464 ( ci t i ng B ow l es v. R us s el l , 551 U . S. 205 ( 2007) ) . I n thi s cas e, Fr ankl i n w as s ent ence d i n February2000 and fi l ed hi s R ul e 35 mot i on i n N ovember2009. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rtc le a rl yla c k e dju ri s d ic tio n to e n te rt a in h is m o tio n a n ds h o u ld h a v e d is m is s e dit. T he appe al i s her ebydeni ed.