FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MAY 7, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13634 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 0 0 1 0 2 - C R - R V - 3 - MD U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s T H E R E S A F . B U L L A R D , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 7, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

B u lla r d , w h o is s e rv in g a1 0 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith th e i n t en tt o d i stri b u t e m o re th an 1 , 0 0 0 k i l o g ram s o f m ari j u an a, fi l ed a p ro se m ot i on, pur s ua ntt o F e de r a l R ul e of C i vi l P r oc e dur e “ 52( a ) ( c ) 60( b) , ” f or decl ar at i on of the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng s of f

ac tand con cl usi on s of l aw , as re l at ed to th e c o u rt’s p r e v io u s o r d e rd e n y in g h e rm o tio n to d is m is s f o rla c ko f

ju r is d ic tio n . T he di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d the m ot i on a nd B ul l a r d appe a l s f r om tha tor de r . F orthe r e a s o n s s e tf

o rth mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. I . Ba c k g r o und B u lla r d p le d g u ilty to th e ab o v e - m e n tio n e d o f f e n s e in N o v e m b e r2 0 0 2 . B ul l ar d’ s pre se nt ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ) r ec om m ended a tw o-l evel i ncre as e i n h erbase offe nse l evel , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1), because her a c c o m p lic e p o s s e s s e d af ir e a rm in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e d ru g o f f e n s e . B u lla r d d id no tobj ec tt o the P S I’ s r ec om m endat i on of the tw o-l evel i ncre as e. T he di stri ct c our tappl i e d the i nc r e a s e a s r e c om m e nde d i n the P S I a nd s e nt e nc e d B ul l a r d t o 108 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. B u lla r d d id n o t d ir e c tly ap p e a l h e rc o n v ic tio n o rs e n te n c e . In Janu ary 200 4, B ul l ar d fi l ed a m ot i on t o v ac at e, se tas i de, or corr ec ther s e n te n c e , p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , a r g u in g th a t th e f ir e a rm e n h a n c e m e n t to her off ense l evel w as no tsupp ort ed by the fa ct s of herca se . T he di stri ctcourt de ni e d he r§ 2255 m ot i on i n D e c e m be r2004. O n J a nua ry 3, 2006, B ul l a r d f i l e d aUnited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L .Ed.2d 621 (2005). 1 3 “ m ot i on t o e l i m i na t e e nha nc e m e nt s a nd r e duc e s e nt e nc e ” on the gr ound tha tthe S upr e m e C ourt ’ s de c i s i on i n B ooke r r e qui r e d af i ndi ng tha the rs e nt e nc i ng 1 enhancem ent s w er e i m prop er l y bas ed up on the court ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s thatw er e nei ther a dm i tt ed by B ul l ar d n or foun d b y aj ury bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . A ft er the gove rnm e nt ’ s r e s pons e tha tB ul l a r d’ s m ot i on w a s a n a tt e m ptt o c i r c um ve nt § 2255’ s s e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve m ot i on r e qui r e m e nt s , the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m o tio n w ith o u t o p in io n o n J a n u a ry 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 . B ul l a r d ne xtf

i l e d a“ m ot i on unde rR ul e 52 F . R . C I V . P . , ” on M a r c h 21, 2006, re qu es t i ng thatthe courtm ake f ac tual fi nd i ng s and concl usi on s of l aw as t o h er “m o tio n to e lim in a te e n h a n c e m e n ts a n d r e d u c e s e n te n c e .” T h e g o v e rn m e n t a g a in r e s ponde d tha tB ul l a r d’ s m ot i on w a s a n a tt e m ptt o c i r c um ve nt§ 2255’ s s uc c e s s i ve fi l i ng re qu i re m ent s and thatB oo ker w as no tre troac t i vel y app l i cabl e on col l at er al r e vi e w . O n A pr i l 7, 2006, the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m ot i on unde rR ul e 52 “ f or al l of the re as on s s etou ti n the G ov ernm ent ’ s r es po nse. ” O n A pri l 10 , 20 06 , B ul l ar d fi l ed a “ m ot i on t o d i sm i ss for l ac k o f t erri t ori al j ur i s di c t i on” a nd a“ m ot i on t o pr ovi de f ori ns pe c t i on of

j ury l i s ti n s uppor tof f u tu r e mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s g r a n d j u ry i n d i c tme n tp u r s u a n tt o Ti t l e 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 8 6 7 ( a ) a n d ( f

) .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n s w ith o u t o p in io n o n A p r il4

13, 2006. O n A pr i l 27, 2006, B ul l a r d f i l e d a“ m ot i on unde rR ul e 52( a ) ( c ) 60( b) f in d in g s o f

f a c t a n d c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w ,” r e q u e s tin g th a t th e c o u r t p r o v id e its r e a s oni ng f

orde ny i ng he rpr e vi ous m ot i on t o di s m i s s f orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on. T he go vernm entre qu es t ed thatthe courtdeny the m ot i on . O n Jun e 5, 20 06 , the court deni ed the “ m ot i on un der R ul e 52(a)( c) 60 (b), ” s t at i ng thati thad “ prop er ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e d e f e n d a n t a n d th e s u b

je c t o f f e n s e .” B u lla r d n o w ap p e a ls

“ fr om the order on Jun e 05, 20 06 . ” I I . D i s c u s s i on B ul l ar d argues i n h erpro se bri ef thatshe has appeal ed fr om the di stri ct co u rt’s o rd erth at d en ied h erm o ti o n fo r a statem en t o f r ea so n s a s to th e c o u rt’s de ni a l of he r“ m ot i on t o e l i m i na t e e nha nc e m e nt s a nd r e duc e s e nt e nc e . ” S he m a i nt a i ns tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n de ny i ng he rm ot i on t o e l i m i na t e the f i r e a rm s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e ntbe c aus e tha te nha nc e m e ntw a s ba s e d upon j ud ge-f ou nd fa ct s, w hi ch vi ol at ed B oo ker. B ul l ar d al so cont ends thatthe di stri ct c our te rr one ous l y de ni e d he rthe oppor tuni ty t o pr ove he ra c tua l i nnoc e nc e of the fa ct s s up po rt i ng the fi re arm se nt enci ng enhancem ent . S he ar gu es thatthe di stri ct courtshou l d rem ov e the § 2 D 1. 1 fi re arm enhancem entfr om her off ense l evel c a lc u la tio n a n d s h o u ld r e s e n te n c e h e rin a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e n e w g u id e lin e r a n g e . T h is C o u rt is “o b lig a te d to in q u ir e in to s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n s u as p o n te5

w henever i tm aybe l ac ki ng . ” C adetv. B ul ger, 37 7 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 79 (11th C i r. 2004) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . H e r e , a c c or di ng t o B ul l a r d’ s not i c e of appe a l , s he e x p lic itly ap p e a ls f

r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rd e n y in g h e r“m o tio n u n d e rR u le 52 (a )( c) 60 (b) f

i nd i ng s of f

ac tand con cl usi on s of l aw , ” w hi ch re qu es t ed cl ar i fi ca t i on of the court ’ s deni al of her m ot i on t o d i sm i ss for l ac k o f t erri t ori al j ur i s di c t i on. N e ve rthe l e s s , s he i m pl i e s i n he rappe l l a t e br i e f tha ts he appe a l s the de ni a l of he rm ot i on f

oras t a t e m e ntof

r e a s ons a nd c l a r i f

i c a t i on a s t o he rpr e vi ous

“ m ot i on t o e l i m i na t e e nha nc e m e nt s a nd r e duc e s e nt e nc e , ” a nd s he goe s on t o a r gue is s u e s r e g a r d in g th e s u b s ta n c e o f th a t m o tio n to r e d u c e h e rs e n te n c e . G iv e n th is di s c r e pa nc y , w e m us tde t e rm i ne the s c ope of B ul l a r d’ s appe a l a nd ourj ur i s di c t i on o v e rh e ra r g u m e n ts a s p r e s e n te d in h e rb r ie f .

“ T he t i m e l y f

i l i ng of anot i c e of

appe a l i s am a nda t ory pr e r e qui s i t e t o the e xe r c i s e of

appe l l a t e j ur i s di c t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r a nt , 256 F . 3d 1146, 1150 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( qu ot i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. W ar d, 69 6 F . 2d 13 15 , 13 17 (11th C i r. 1 9 8 3 )). P u rsu an tt o F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 (b )(1 )(A )(i ), a d efen d an ti n a cri m i n al case m u s t f ile an o tic e o f

ap p e a l w ith in 1 0 d a y s o f th e e n try o f

th e o r d e rb e in g ap p e a le d . I n a ddi t i on, F e d. R . A pp. P . 3( c ) ( 1) ( B ) r e qui r e s tha tanot i c e of appe a l “ de s i gna t e the ju d g m e n t, o r d e r , o rp a rt th e r e o f b e in g ap p e a le d .” “O r d in a r ily , f a ilu r e to ab id e th is r e qui r e m e ntw i l l pr e c l ude the appe l l a t e c our tf r om r e vi e w i ng a ny j udgm e ntor6

order notso spec i fi ed. ” M cD ou gal d v . Je nson , 78 6 F . 2d 14 65 , 14 74 (11th C i r. 1986) . “ [ W ] he r e s om e port i ons of [ a n or de ra r e ] e xpr e s s l y m a de apa r tof the appeal , w e m usti nferthatthe appel l antdi d n oti nt end t o app ea l other unm ent i on ed or de r s orj udgm e nt s . ” O s t e rne c k v. E . T . B a rw i c k I ndus tr i e s , I nc . , 825 F . 2d 1521, 15 29 (11th C i r. 19 87 ). B a s e d upon the r e c or d, a nd B ul l a r d’ s e xpl i c i tde c l a r a t i on i n he rnot i c e of appe a l tha ts he w i s he d t o appe a l f r om the de ni a l of

the c our t ’ s “ or de ron J une 05, 2006, ” w hi c h w a s the de ni a l of he r“ m ot i on unde rR ul e 52( a ) ( c ) 60( b) ” f or c l a r i f i c a t i on of

the c ourt ’ s pr e vi ous or de rde ny i ng he rm ot i on t o di s m i s s f orl a c k of ju r is d ic tio n , w e w ill in f e rth a t s h e is n o t ap p e a lin g th e d e n ia l o f an y o th e rm o tio n . S e e O s t e rne c k, 825 F . 2d a t1529. T hus , the s c ope of thi s appe a l i s l i m i t e d t o the de ni a l of B ul l a r d’ s m ot i on f

orc l a r i f i c a t i on of

the c our t ’ s pr e vi ous or de rde ny i ng the m ot i on t o d i sm i ss for l ac k o f j uri sdi ct i on . C on strui ng B ul l ar d’ s app el l at e bri ef li b er ally, h o w ev er , sh e o n ly ra ises issu es re g ar d in g h erse n ten ce an d th e c o u rt’s deni al of her m ot i on t o el i m i nat e the fi re arm enhancem entfr om her off ense l evel ca l cul at i on . S ee M cB ri de v. S harpe, 25 F . 3d 96 2, 97 1 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ) ( no t i ng that w e c ons true pr o s e br i e f s l i be r a l l y ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e de e m aba ndone d a ny a r gum e nt s r e ga r di ng the c ourt ’ s de ni a l of B ul l a r d’ s m ot i on f

orc l a r i f i c a t i on c o n c e rn in g h e rm o tio n to d is m is s f o rla c ko f

ju r is d ic tio n - th e o n ly o r d e rp r o p e r ly7

be f or e thi s C ourtf

orr e vi e w . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C unni ngha m , 161 F . 3d 1343, 1344 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng tha t , w he r e a n appe l l a ntof f e r e d no a r gum e nton appeal re gardi ng the on l y i ss ue prop er l y r es erved for appeal , the appel l anthad ab a n d o n e d th a t is s u e ) . M o r e o v e r , th e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s th a t B u lla r d f ile d h e r“m o tio n to e l i m i na t e e nha nc e m e nt s a nd r e duc e s e nt e nc e ” on J a nua ry 3, 2006, a nd tha tthe c our tde ni e d tha tm ot i on on J a nua ry 17, 2006. B ul l a r d di d notf i l e anot i c e of appe a l a s t o the c ourt ’ s de ni a l of tha tm ot i on. H ow e ve r , on M a r c h 21, 2006, B ul l a r d f i l e d am ot i on r e que s t i ng tha tthe c our tm a ke f a c tua l f i ndi ngs a nd c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w w ith r e g a r d to its d e n ia l o f h e r“m o tio n to e lim in a te e nha nc e m e nt s a nd r e duc e s e nt e nc e . ” T he c our tde ni e d tha tm ot i on on A pr i l 7, 2006, a nd B ul l a r d di d notf i l e anot i c e of

appe a l a s t o tha tor de rw i thi n 10 da y s of i t s e ntry . T here fore , t o the ext entthatB ul l ar d n ow ar gu es on appeal thatthe court e rr one ous l y de ni e d he r“ m ot i on t o e l i m i na t e e nha nc e m e nt s a nd r e duc e s e nt e nc e ” or her r equestt o cl ar i fythatdeni al , w e are w i tho utj uri sdi ct i on t o add re ss her a r g u me n t s b e c au s e s h e f a i l e d t o t i me l y ap p e a l th o s e o r d e r s . Se e Fe d . R. A p p . P. 4(b)(1)(A )( i ). A dd i t i on al l y, t o the ext entthatB ul l ar d rai se s i ss ues on app ea l that she pre se nt ed i n h er§ 2 25 5 m ot i on , w hi ch the di stri ctcourtdeni ed i n D ec em ber 20 04 , w e s i m i l ar l y l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o add re ss tho se cl ai m s bec ause B ul l ar d h as8

n o to b t a i n e d ac e rt i f

i c a t e o f ap p e a l ab i l i ty , a s r e q u i r e d b y § 2 2 5 5 . Se e 2 8 U . S. C. § 2255. I I I . C on c l u s i on W e c o n c lu d e th a t B u lla r d ab a n d o n e d a ll a r g u m e n ts w ith r e g ar d to th e o n ly di stri ctcourtorder properl y bef ore thi s C ou rton appeal and thatw e l ac k j ur i s di c t i on t o a ddr e s s the i s s ue s s he r a i s e s i n he rbr i e f . I n l i ghtof

the f or e goi ng, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f B u lla r d ’s “m o tio n u n d e rR u le 5 2 ( a ) ( c ) 6 0 ( b ) ” is AF F I RME D.