[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10487

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:08-cr-60134-WPD-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

RONALD LAROSE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 13, 2015)

Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-10487 Date Filed: 07/13/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Ronald Larose, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his motion to 

reduce his sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 782 to the 

United States Sentencing Guidelines and the denial of his motion for 

reconsideration, Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). Larose argues that the district court abused 

its discretion in denying his motions because it improperly weighed the relevant 

sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We affirm in part and vacate in part.

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reduce a 

sentence based on a later change in the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. 

Brown, 332 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2003). And we review de novo the 

jurisdiction of the district court. United States v. Oliver, 148 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th 

Cir. 1998). 

A district court must follow a two-step process in ruling on a motion to 

reduce a sentence based on a later change in the Sentencing Guidelines. United 

States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). First, the district court must 

recalculate the defendant’s sentence by “substituting the amended guideline range 

for the originally applied guideline range.” Id. That is, “the court shall determine 

the amended guideline range that would have been applicable to the defendant if 

the amendment[] . . . had been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced.” 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1). “All other guideline application decisions made during 

the original sentencing remain intact.” Bravo, 203 F.3d at 780 (quoting United 

Case: 15-10487 Date Filed: 07/13/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 1998)). Second, the district court 

must decide whether to retain the original sentence or to resentence the defendant 

under the amended guideline range based on the relevant sentencing factors, 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a). Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781; see also Vautier, 144 F.3d at 760 (“The 

grant of authority to the district court to reduce a term of imprisonment [under § 

3582(c)(2)] is unambiguously discretionary.”). The district court is “not required to 

articulate the applicability of each factor as long as the record as a whole 

demonstrates that the pertinent factors were taken into account.” United States v. 

Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a), a district court may correct 

a sentence for an “arithmetical, technical, or other clear error” within 14 days after 

sentencing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). That 14-day deadline is jurisdictional. United 

States v. Diaz-Clark, 292 F.3d 1310, 1317 (11th Cir. 2002); see also United States 

v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1196–97 (11th Cir. 2010). In Phillips, we held that 

when a district court reduces a sentence under section 3582(c)(2) “the strictures of 

Rule 35 apply.” 597 F.3d at 1197–99. We later held that the rationale of Phillips

extends to cases in which the district court denies a motion to reduce a sentence on 

the merits because a “denial on the merits is still, in essence, a new sentence.” 

United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 662, 667 (11th Cir. 2014). 

Case: 15-10487 Date Filed: 07/13/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Larose’s motion 

to reduce his sentence. The district court correctly followed the two-step process 

for deciding whether to grant Larose’s motion. The district court recalculated 

Larose’s guideline range and weighed the relevant sentencing factors. The district 

court acted within its discretion when it found that Larose’s original 151-month 

sentence was necessary to protect the public, promote respect for the law, and act 

as a deterrent. We affirm the denial of Larose’s motion to reduce his sentence.

We cannot consider Larose’s arguments about the denial of his motion for 

reconsideration. The district court lacked jurisdiction to deny Larose’s motion for 

reconsideration more than 14 days after it had denied his motion to reduce his 

sentence. Accordingly, we vacate that order. 

AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART. 

Case: 15-10487 Date Filed: 07/13/2015 Page: 4 of 4