F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT N ovembe r 8, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1643 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 86-00322 -CR- FA M UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us RICHAR D JOSEPH, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(N ove m be r 8, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Be cause the offe nses of whic h J oseph wa s convicted oc curr ed bef ore 1 N ovember

1987, a for

mer 1 version of F ed.R.Crim.P. 35(a), which provides that a dis trict court “ may corr ect a n illega l sentence at any time,” applies in this case . See F ed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) (1987) . Title 18 U.S.C. § 4205(b)(1), whic h applied to def endants c onvicted of o ff

en s es committed 2 befor e 1 Nove mber 1987, provide d: Up on e nte ri nga

jud g me nt o f c onvic tio n, the cou rt havin gjur isd ic tio n to imp os e sentenc e, whe n in its opinion the ends of justice a nd best interest of the public require that the def

endant be sentenc ed to imprisonment for a term excee ding one y ear , may . . . desig nate in the se ntence of imprisonment imposed a m i n i m u m t er m at the expiration of which the prisoner shall become elig ible for parole, whic h term may be less than but shall not be more than one-third of the maximum sentenc e imposed by the c ourt . See United States v. B eale , 921 F.2d 1412, 1436 n.26 ( 11th Cir. 1991) (“Congres s re p ealed [18 U.S.C. § 4205] by the Comprehensive Crime Control Ac t of 1984, eff ective a s to crimes committed afte r Nove mber 1, 1987.” ). 2 Ri ch ar d Jo se ph a

ppe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his se co nd m oti on t o co rr ec t an il le ga l se nte nc e pur suant t o F ed . R. Cr im . P. 35( a) . N o r ev er sib le e rr or 1 h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Joseph wa s convicted bya j ury of m ultip le narcotics offe nses that occurred be tw ee n 19 80 and 1 986, inc lud ing c ont inu ing c ri m ina l e nte rp ri se in vio latio n of 21 U. S. C. § 848 . The district court sentenced Joseph to cons ecutive sentences tot al ing 150 y ears ’ im

pr iso nm en t and t o aspe ci al paro le te rm of 12 y ears . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso or de re d th at , pur suant t o 18 U . S. C. § 42 05( b) (1 ), Jos ep h w oul d not be co m e el igi ble f

or paro le unt il af

te r 40 y ears ’ im

pr iso nm en t. 23

A ft er w e af fi rm ed Jos ep h’ s c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es on d ir ec t a ppe al and af fi rm ed the de nia l of

his 28 U . S. C. § 22 55 m oti on t o va cate his se nte nc e, Jos ep h filed his first m otion for cor rection of illegal sentence under Fed. R.C rim .P . 35(a) , in which he argued, am ong o ther things , that ( 1) his 40-y ear m inim um sentence be fo re r ea ch ing paro le e lig ibi lity e xc ee de d on e- thi rd

of the 100 -y ear m ax im

um se nte nc e that c oul d have be enim pose d onthe paro le -e lig ibl e co unt s of c onvi ct ion , in v iol at ionof

18 U . S. C. § 42 05 and ( 2) his se nte nc e vio late d th e Se nte nc ing Reform Ac t, 28 U .S .C. § 994. The district court denied Jo seph’ s Rule 35(a) m oti on; and w e af

fi rm ed , c onc lud ing that, be ca use Jos ep h a lr ea dy

ha d r ai se d th e se ct ion420 5 paro le e lig ibi lity iss ue in his dir ec t a

ppe al and h is s ec tio n 22 55 m ot io n, h e co ul d n otpro pe rly rais e th is is su e fo r a t hi rdti m e. In ad di ti on , we af fi rm ed the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat the S en te nc ing Re fo rm A ct did not apply to Joseph ’ s case beca

use, am ong o ther things , Joseph was sentence d before its effec tive date. Joseph then filed another Rule 35(a) m otion for cor rection of illegal se nte nc e, w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d. I n th is m oti on, Jos ep h arg ue d th at , pur suant t o F ed . R. Cr im . P. 6( f) , his ind ic tm en t w as inv al id, w hic h de pr ive d th e district court of j urisdictio n over his case, because the re cord lacked evidence that the grand jury

returned his indictm ent in open cou rt. Joseph also re- asserted4

ar gum en ts - - unde r se ct ion420 5 and the S en te nc ing Re fo rm A ct - - ab out the ill eg al ity of the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r re qui ri ng h im to se rv e 40 y ears in pr iso n before bec om ing eligi ble for parole. Th e d i s tri ctco u rtp ro p er l y d en i edJ o s ep h ’s s ec o n dRu l e 3 5 (a ) mot i o n . We are not persuaded byJoseph’s contention th at his sentence shou ld be vacated be cau se th e rec or d l ack s ev id en ce t ha t h is in di ct m en t was returne d i n o pe n c ou rt. Se e H ill v. U nit ed

S tate s, 82 S . Ct . 468 , 472 ( 1962 ) (e xpl ai nin g th at “ the narr ow func tio n of

Ru le 35 i s to pe rm it co rr ec tio n at any ti m e of an il le ga l se nte nc e, not

to re -e xam ine e rr or s oc curr ing a t the tr ia l or oth er pr oc ee din gs p ri or

to im posi tio n of se nte nc e” and c onc lud ing that a se nte nc e w as not

il le ga l be ca

use the “puni shm en t m et ed out w as not in ex ce ss o f that pr es cr ibe d by the r el ev an t st at

ute s, m ult ipl e term s wer e not im

posed for the sam e offe nse, nor w ere the term s of the sentence its el f le ga lly

or c onst itutio na lly

inv al id i n any

oth er r es pe ct ”) and Unit ed

S tate s v. Mor gan, 74 S . Ct . 247 , 250 ( 1954 ) (“ Se nte nc es sub j ec t t o c or

re ct ionund er

[ Ru le 35(a)] are those that the judgm ent of conviction did no t authorize.” ); cf. United St at es v. P ine ro , 948 F . 2d 6 98, 700 ( 11th C ir . 199 1) ( re j ec tin g de fe ndants ’ ar gum en t tha t c onvi ct ion s sh oul d be va cate d be ca use of abse nc e of

ind ic at ionin re co rd that j ur y w as sw or

n inand n oti ng tha t “ [t ] he m er e ab se nc e of an a ff irm at iveTo th e e xtent th at Josephargue s th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r o n h is p aro le e lig ibi lity is 3 ambi guo us , w e c on c lud e that th is c la im i s w ith out me ri t. 5 statem ent in the record . . . is not enough to establish that the j ury wa s not in fac t swo rn ”). And as w e have discussed, Joseph cannot properly argue again -- after raising the claim

in his di rect a

ppeal, sec tion 2 255 m otion , and his first Rule 35(a) m oti on - - that hi s 40 -y ear m ini m um se nte nc e be fo re be co m ing e lig ibl e fo r paro le vio late s 18 U . S. C. § 42 05. S ee U nit ed S tate s v. Jor dan, 429 F . 3d 1 032, 103 5 3 (11th Cir. 2005) (“ The law of the case doctrine bars r elitigation of issues that were de ci de d, e ith er

e xpl ic itl y

or by ne ce ssary

im pli catio n, in ane ar lie r ap pe al of the sa m e cas e.”). In ad di ti on , abo utJo se ph ’s Sen te nc in g R efo rm Act ar gu m en t, we have explained that the Act does not applyto Joseph ’ s sentence because he w as convicted and sent enced for off enses that occurred before 1 Novem ber 1987. See United States v. Burgess, 858 F. 2d 15 12, 1514 (11t h Cir. 1988 ) (e xplaini ng that

“ Congress has evinced an explicit in tent that defendants who have been convicted of crim es com

m itted prior to Novem

ber 1, 1987 be sentenced under the old law [i nst ea d of

the S en te nc ing Re fo rm

A ct ] ”) . T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of Joseph ’ s second Rule 35(a) m otion wa s not reversible error. AFFIR MED.