### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-41069 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LEONEL GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:10-CR-1708-1

Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Leonel Gonzalez pleaded guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced on June 15, 2011, to an 87-month term of imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised release. On June 21, 2011, the district court vacated its original sentence because it h a d m ade an error in calculating Gonzalez’s base offense level. Gonzalez was resentenced on September 27, 2011, to a 120-month term of imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary29 , 20 13 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-41069 Document: 00512128472 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2013No. 11-41069

release. Subsequently, judgment was entered. Gonz a l e z g a v e notice of his appeal. This court must satisfy itsel f o f the district court’s jurisdiction. United S t ates v. Garcia , 606 F.3d 209, 212 n.5 (5th Cir. 2010). “‘A jud g m e n t o f conviction that in c l u d e s a sentence of imprisonment constitutes a final judgment and may not be modified b y a d i s trict court except in limited circumstances.’” United States v. Caulfield , 634 F.3d 281, 283 (5th Cir. 201 1) (quoting Dillon v. United States , 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690 (2 0 1 0 ); internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b) & (c). The issue presented is whether the district court had the authority under § 3582(c) to modify the term of imprisonment under Rule 35(a) o f t h e F e d e ral Rules of Criminal Procedure. See § 3582(c)(1)(B). Rule 35(a) provides, “Within 14 days after sentencing, t h e c o u r t may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.” F E D
. R. C R I M
. P. 35(a). The original sentencing occurred on June 15, 2011, when the district court orally announced the original 87-month sentence. See R U L E 35(c). Both parties

a g r e e that the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose the new sentence on S eptember 27, 2011, because the resentencing occurred after the expirati o n o f the 14-day period of Rule 35(a). See United States v. Lopez , 26 F.3d 512, 519 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1994). Judgment was not entered following imposition of the original sentence. Because the subsequent resentencing and entry of judgment were outside of the 14-day period of Rule 35(a), they are void. See F E D
. R. A P P
. P. 4(b). Thus, there

was no judgment from whic h G o n z a lez could appeal, and this court lacks jurisdiction. See United States v. Jones , 2012 W L 4903683 at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2012) (unpublished). The appeal is DISMISSED.

2 Case: 11-41069 Document: 00512128472 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2013