FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 6, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 05- 11512 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 9 4 - 0 6 2 2 8 - CR - DLG 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 R U D O L P H W E L L I N G T O N , 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e pt e m be r6, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R udol ph W e l l i ngt on, a f e de r a l pr i s one rpr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the2

d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s o r d e rd e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n f o rc l a r i f i c a t i o n o f

h i s s e n t e n c e . On appe a l , W e l l i ngt on a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by de ny i ng hi s m ot i on b e c a u s e th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e m o r e th a n f iv e y e a r s a g o c o m m itte d a c le r ic a l e rr o rin the j ud gm entof conv i ct i on by i m po si ng a s ent ence thatw as 20 m on ths grea t erthan wh a th e c l a i m s wa s th e m a x i m u m a l l o wab l e s e n t e n c e . We l l i n g t o n c l a i m s th a twe s h o u l d c o rr e c th i s s e n t e n c e . T h e g o v e rn m e n ta r g u e s , a m o n g o th e rth i n g s , th a twe l ac k j uri sdi ct i on because W el l i ng t on fi l ed hi s app ea l on e day l at e. A bsentcontra ryevi dence, w e w i l l as sum e thata pri soner’ s f i l i ng w as

“ d el i v ered t o p ri so n au th o ri t i es th e d ay h e si g n ed i t . ” W ash i n g t o n v . U n i t ed S t at es, 2 4 3 F .3 d 1 2 9 9 , 1 3 0 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . W hether w e have j uri sdi ct i on ov era part i cul arca se i s aqu es t i on of l aw subj ec tt o p l enary r evi ew . M ar s v. M ou nt s, 89 5 F . 2d 13 48 , 13 51 (11th C i r. 19 90 ). W hether adi stri ctcourthas s ubj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on i s aqu es t i on of l aw subj ec t t o de novo orpl e na ry r e vi e w . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a r t i ne z , 241 F . 3d 1329, 1330 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t it d id n o t h a v e e q u itab le ju r is d ic tio n is re vi ew ed de no vo ); se e U ni t ed S t at es v. Sj ekl ocha, 11 4 F . 3d 10 85 , 10 87 , (11th C i r. 1997) ( w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tha d the a uthor i ty t o r e - s e nt e nc e the de f e nda nt un der f orm erR ul e 35(a) and 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 i s al egal qu es t i on subj ec tt o p l enary r e v ie w ) .3

“ [A ] si de fr om the spec i fi c par am et er s s etforth b y the fe dera l st atut ory prov i si on s c on trol l i ng se nt enci ng , as w el l as the F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re , ” di stri ctcourt s do n othave the autho ri ty t o m od i fya s ent ence . U ni t ed S t at es v. D i az -C l ark, 29 2 F . 3d 13 10 , 13 15 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). M od i fi ca t i on of an i m po se d t erm of i m pri sonm enti s gov erned b y 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(b), w hi ch prov i des thata s ent ence of i m pri sonm entca n sub se qu ent l y be: (1) m od i fi ed pu rs uantt o the prov i si on s of s ub se ct i on (c ); (2 ) co rrect ed p u rsu an tt o th e p ro v i si o n s o f ru l e 3 5 o f th e F ed eral R u l es of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e a nd s e c t i on 3742; or ( 3) appe a l e d a nd m odi f

i e d, i f out s i de the gui de l i ne r a nge , pur s ua ntt o th e p r o v is io n s o f

s e c tio n 3 7 4 2 ; S ee 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (b ). Itfu rth er st at es: (c ) M o di f

i c a t i o n o f

a n i m po s e d t e r m o f

i m pr i s o nm e nt . --T h e co u rtm ay notm odi f

y a t e r m of

i m pr i s onm e ntonc e i tha s be e n i m pos e d e xc e pttha t– (1) i n any ca se -- ( A ) the c our t , upon m ot i on of the D i r e c t orof

the B ur e a u of P ri sons, m ayre du ce the t erm of i m pri sonm ent(a nd m ayi m po se a t erm of prob at i on or supervi se d rel ea se w i th o r w i tho utcond i t i on s that doe s note xc e e d the uns e r ve d por t i on of the or i gi na l t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt ) , a f

t e rc ons i de r i ng the f

a c t or s s e tf

or th i n s e c t i on 35 53 (a ) t o the ext entthatthey a re appl i cabl e, i f i tfi nd s that --

(i ) e xtra ordi naryand com pel l i ng re as on s w arra ntsuch a r e duc t i on; or ( ii) th e d e f

e n d a n t is a t le a s t 7 0 y e a r s o f a g e , h a s s e r v e d a t l e a s t30 y e a r s i n pr i s on, pur s ua ntt o a s e nt e nc e i m pos e d

un der s ec t i on 35 59 (c ), for the offens e or off ense s f or w hi ch the defendanti s c urre nt l y i m pri soned, and a det erm i nat i on has bee n m ade by the D i re ct or of the4 B ur e a u of

P r i s ons tha tthe de f

e nda nti s nota da nge rt o th e safety o f an y o th er p erso n o r th e co m m u n i ty, as prov i ded u nd erse ct i on 31 42 (g); an d th atsu ch a red u ct i o n i s co n si st en tw i th ap p l i cab l e p o l i cy s t a t e m e nt s i s s ue d by the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on; a nd ( B ) th e c o u r t m a y m o d if y a n im p o s e d te r m o f

im p r is o n m e n t to the e xt e ntothe rw i s e e xpr e s s l y pe r m i tt e d by s t a tut e orby R ul e 35 of the F e de r a l R ul e s of

C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e ; a nd (2) i n the ca se of a def

endantw ho has bee n sent ence d t o a t erm of i m p ri so n m en tb ased o n a sen t en ci n g ran g e th ath as su b seq u en t l y b e e n lo w e r e d b y th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . 99 4(o), up on m ot i on of the defendantor the D i re ct or of the B ureau o f P ri sons, or on i t s ow n m ot i on , the courtm ayre du ce the t erm of i m pr i s onm e nt , a f

t e rc ons i de r i ng the f

a c t or s s e tf

or th i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) t o the e xt e nttha tthe y a r e appl i c abl e , i f s uc h a r e duc t i on i s c ons i s t e ntw i th appl i c abl e pol i c y s t a t e m e nt s i s s ue d by the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on. S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) .

“ T he prov i so thata c ou rtm aym od i fya s ent ence w hen exp re ss l y perm i tt ed by s t a tut e r e f

e r s t o s i tua t i ons w he r e the de f e nda nti s i nc a r c e r a t e d pur s ua ntt o a pl ai nl y i l l egal se nt ence . T he draft er s of the F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re expl i ci t l y a ss um ed thata def endantdet ai ned p ursuantt o such a se nt ence coul d see k re l i ef un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 i f the se ven d ayperi od prov i ded i n R ul e 35(c) has el apse d. ” D i az -C l ark, 29 2 F . 3d at13 16 (r ef erri ng t o form erR ul e 35(c), w hi ch b e c a me n e w Ru l e 3 5 ( a ) o n D e c e mb e r1 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( i n t e rn a l c i t a t i o n s o mi tt e d ) . Fe d . R. C r im .P . 3 5 ( a ) p r o v id e s th a t “w ith in 7 d a y s a f te rs e n te n c in g , th e c o u r t m a y c o rr e c t a se nt ence thatre sul t ed fr om ar i thm et i ca l , t ec hn i ca l , or other c l ea r e rr or. ”5

F e d. R . C r i m . P . 35( a ) ( 2005) . T he s e ve n da y r e qui r e m e nti n the c urr e ntve r s i on of R u le 3 5 ( a ) is ju r is d ic tio n a l. D ia z - C la r k , 2 9 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 7 ( d is c u s s in g f o r m e rR u le 35 (c )) . W e m a y a f

f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's ju d g m e n t o n a n y g r o u n d th a t ap p e a r s in the r e c or d, w he the rornottha tgr ound w a s r e l i e d upon ore ve n c ons i de r e d by the courtbel ow . S ee S pazi ano v . S i ng l et ary, 36 F . 3d 10 28 , 10 41 (11th C i r. 19 94 ). A s a n i ni t i al m att er , w e have j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der W el l i ng t on ’ s app ea l s in c e h e d a te d h is c e r tif ic a te o f s e r v ic e a tta c h e d to h is n o tic e o f ap p e a l w e ll w ith in th e 1 0 - d a y ap p e a l p e r i o d a s r e q u i r e d b y F e d . R . Ap p . P . 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) . Ho we v e r , we af fi rm because there w as no st atut ory provi si on or F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P ro ce d u re th at w o u ldh av e a u th o rize d th e d istrict co u rt to m o d ify W elli n g to n ’s s e n te n c e f

iv e y e a r s a f

te rr e - s e n te n c in g . T h e o n ly a v a ilab le b a s is f o rr e lie f in th is c a s e i s 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 1) ( B ) , w hi c h pe r m i t s m odi f i c a t i on t o the e xt e nt p e r m itte d b y s ta tu te o rb y R u le 3 5 . H o w e v e r , R u le 3 5 ( a ) d o e s n o t p r o v id e r e lie f to W el l i ng t on because he di d n otfi l e hi s m ot i on t o correc thi s s ent ence w i thi n seven da y s pr e s c r i be d by the rul e . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notha ve j uri sdi ct i on t o m od i fyW el l i ng t on ’ s s ent ence pu rs uantt o R ul e 35(a). M oreover, the r e w a s no r e l i e f

a va i l abl e f

orW e l l i ngt on unde r28 U . S . C . § 2255 e i the r , s i nc e he h a d a lr e a d y f

ile d a § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n in 2 0 0 1 a n d h a d n o t o b ta in e d o u rp e r m is s io n to6

f i l e a s e c ond. T hus , the di s tr i c tc our tl a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on, a nd w e a f f i r m i t s de c i s i on on thi s gr ound. AF F I RME D.