[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 15702 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:00

- cr - 00015

- SPM

- GRJ

- 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus WILLIAM H. BLACK, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Cour t for the Northern District of Florida

________________________ (July 1, 2013) Case: 12-15702 Date Filed: 07/01/2013 Page: 1 of 62 Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM:
On January 31, 2002, a jury found William H. Black guilty of Count One of
a two

- count indictment: conspiracy , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, and obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 134 1 3 , 1343 and 1505. On May 7, 2002, the District Court sentenced Black to 60

- months ’ imprisonment 1 followed by a 36

- months ’ term of supervised

re lease, and ordered him to pay $12,228,077 in restitution. On August 5, 2004, Black pled guilty to C ount T wo of the indictment, which charged him with conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and the District Court sentenced him to a prison term of 51 months and 21 days and a 36

- months’ term of supervised release, to run concurrently with the
sentence on Count One. As a condition of his supervised release, the c ourt ordered Black to pay any outstanding restitution obligation in monthly installments of at least $250 starting no later than three months after his release from prison. On January 31, 2011, while Black was on supervised release, his probation officer petitioned the Distr ict Court to revoke his term of supervised release for failing to make his monthly restitution payments. On August 9, 2011, a fter holding a n evidentiary hearing, the c ourt found that Black had failed to make the

1 The sentence was to run consecutively to a sentence Black had received in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Case: 12-15702 Date Filed: 07/01/2013 Page: 2 of 63 payments, revoked his supervised release , a nd from the bench sentenced him to prison for a term of six months to be followed by 30 months of supervised release. In its written judgment filed on August 25, 2011 , however, the court reserved “jurisdiction to reconsider Defendant’s sentence within thirty days of the date of imposition of sentence (August 9, 2011) if” Black provided the court with an accounting of his finances. 2 Black filed a motion for reconsideration of the sentence imposed on August 25 , which the court ordered sealed. The court denied the motion on September 1, 2011, but granted Black leave to file another motion for reconsideration by September 6, 2011. On September 6, Black moved the court a second time for reconsideration of the August 25 sentence. T he court granted the mo tion in an order entered on September 7. The order stated that “[t]he judgment imposed on August 9, 2011 is

va c ated,” and that “ [a]n Amended Judgment will be entered that provides as follows: a. Defendant’s supervised release remains revoked. b. He is sentenced to a period of time served, to be followed by 36 months of supervised release

. c. Defendant is subject to the same conditions of supervised release imposed in the August 9, 2011 judgment and the May 10, 2002 judgment. He shall make restitution payments in an

2 Specifically, the District Court requested that Black provide “the Government with a complete accounting of the settlement funds in case number 3:03cv651 in the United States District Court of South Carolina” and “a complete accounting of his assets.”

Case: 12-15702 Date Filed: 07/01/2013 Page: 3 of 64 amount not less than $250.00 each month or be subject to violation of the conditions or his release. Black did not appeal this September 7, 2011 order. After the court failed to enter an amended judgment, Black, on Octob er 15, 2012, moved the District Court to terminate his supervised release pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). In his motion, Black argued that he was being illegally subjected to supervised release. His argument proceeded as follows: Rule 35(a) imposes a fourteen

- day limit on a district court’s authority to modify or amend a sentence. Once the District Court vacated his sentence on September 7, 2011, it had fourteen days to impose a new sentence. Because the court had not entered a s entence within that period, it no longer had jurisdiction to impose a sentence. Therefore, after the fourteen

- day period, the September 7, 2011, order vacating Black’s August 9, 2011, sentence converted into a final order, rendering Black’s continued supe rvised release under the August 9, 2011, sentence illegal. The court denied the motion on October 23, 2012. The next day, October 24, the court entered an amended judgment revoking the supervised release imposed by the court’s August 5, 2004 judgment; se ntencing Black to time served and, on his release from custody, placing him on supervised release for a term of 36 months; and requiring that he continue restitution payments of $250 per month. On October 29, 2012, Black appealed the October 23, 2012 judg ment.

Case: 12-15702 Date Filed: 07/01/2013 Page: 4 of 65 Black ’s argument on appeal is that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to enter an amended judgment more than fourteen days after issuing its September 7,
2011 order. While Black’s claim is technically correct, t he court lacked jurisdiction to modify Black’s sentence well before September 7, 2011. The fourteen

- day period under Rule 35(a) “begins to run when the sentence in a case is orally imposed, and when [ the fourteen] days are up the court loses jurisdiction to correct a sentence under that subdivision of the rule.” United States v. Morrison , 204 F.3d 1091, 1094 (11th Cir. 2000). Here, the court orally imposed sentence on August 9, 2011. The court thus lost jurisdiction to impose a new sentence under Rule 35(a) on August 23, 2011. Assuming the court’s order on September 7, 2011, was premised on Rule 35(a), it was void ab initio because it was entered fifteen days after Rule 35(a)’s fourteen

- day period had e lapsed. Accordingly, Black’s August 9, 2011, sentence was not vacated by the September 7, 2011 order. Indeed, Black’s August 9, 2011, sentence remains in full effect. Although the District Court entered a n amended judgment on October 24 , 20 12, it lacked the power to modify Black’s August 9, 2011, sentence

. As we have said, [t]he authority of a district court to modify an imprisonment sentence is narrowly limited by statute. Specifically, [18 U.S.C.] § 3582(c) provides that a court may not modify an imprisonment sentence except in these three circumstances: (1) where the Bureau of Prisons has filed a motion and either extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction or the defendant is at least 70 years old and meets Case: 12-15702 Date Filed: 07/01/2013 Page: 5 of 66 certain other requirem ents, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); (2) where another statute or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 expressly permits a sentence modification, see id

. § 3582(c)(1)(B); or (3) where a defendant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Commission and certain other requirements are met, see id. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Phillips , 597 F.3d 1190, 1194

- 95 (11th Cir. 2010)

. The District Court can only modify a n imprisonment sentence under one of
the three circumstances enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Because none of these circumstances is present here, the District Court lacked the authority to modify Black’s sentence. Its amended judgment of October 24, 2012, is therefore a nullity. Had the c ourt wanted to adjust Black’s punishment based on whether he presented adequate financial disclosures to the court, it should not have im posed a sentence before receiving Black’s submissions. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court’s denial of Black’s motion to terminate his supervised release. We also vacate the District Court’s amended judgment of October 24, 2012. Blac k must serve the sentence imposed on August 9, 2011. AFFIRMED, in part; VACATED, in part. Case: 12-15702 Date Filed: 07/01/2013 Page: 6 of 6