Court Opinion

ID: 2964855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:14.855521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:02.083821
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                              _________________________
          No. 97-1240
                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                                   MATTHEW ZSOFKA,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                             __________________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
                [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                             __________________________
                                       Before
                          Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges,
                         and Pollak*, Senior District Judge.
                             __________________________
               F. Michael Keefe
                               and 
                                   Jennifer R. Jones
                                                    on brief for appellant.
               Paul  
                    M.  
                        Gagnon, United States Attorney,   Mark  
                                                               D.  
                                                                   Seltzer,
          Director, New England Bank Fraud Task Force, and Paul J. Andrews,
          Trial Attorney, New England Bank Fraud Task Force, on brief for the
          United States.
               Joan 
                    McPhee, Heidi 
                                  Goldstein 
                                            Shepherd, and  Ropes 
                                                                 & 
                                                                   Gray on
          brief for Dime Savings Bank.
                                   August 5, 1997
          __________________________________
          *Of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

                    Per Curiam
                             . Having carefully reviewed the record in this
          matter, we are fully persuaded that the district court lacked
          jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by the appellant in his
          initial motion. Consequently, this appeal must be dismissed. We
          explain briefly.
                    In general, federal courts are courts of limited
          jurisdiction. In particular, a district court's authority to
          revise a criminal defendant's sentence is restricted to those
          specific instances in which Congress has granted jurisdiction. 
                                                                        See
          United 
                 States v. Blackwell, 81 F.3d 945, 947 (10th Cir. 1996);
          United States v. Angiulo, 57 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir. 1995).
                    In this instance, the appellant has not identified any
          statute or rule conferring jurisdiction upon the district court to
          hear and determine his motion to amend sentence (which was filed
          more than three years after the imposition of sentence). Nor has
          he identified any other plausible basis on which such jurisdiction
          might be predicated. Instead, he tries to premise jurisdiction
          over his motion on "the ongoing equity jurisdiction of [the
          district] court."  See Appellant's Reply Brief at 6. This effort
          is unavailing; the appellant cites no pertinent authority in
          support of the proposition and, as a general principle, federal
                              
               We emphasize that the appellant has resolutely refused to
          characterize the motion in question   which he terms a motion to
          amend sentence   as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. S 2255
          (1994). In point of fact, the appellant did bring a      separate
          section 2255 petition advancing substantially the same argument.
          The district court denied the petition on October 21, 1996, and an
          appeal of that ruling is presently pending in this court (No. 96-
          2365). We take no view of that appeal in this proceeding.
                                          2

          courts have no "equity jurisdiction" in criminal cases.
                    That ends the matter. Because the district court lacked
          jurisdiction to hear and determine the motion to amend sentence,
          the court's order in respect thereto was a nullity,  as were the
          court's ensuing orders in regard to the various motions for
          reconsideration and intervention.
                    We need go no further. The defendant's appeal is
          summarily dismissed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                    Appeal dismissed
                                   .  All parties will bear their own costs
                                                                          .
                              
               The fact that the district court purported to act is of no
          moment. A jurisdictional defect of this kind may be noticed at any
          time.  See Fed R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2);   see also United 
                                                                 States v.
          DiSanto, 86 F.3d 1238, 1244 (1st Cir. 1996) (reaffirming that the
          district court's supposed lack of jurisdiction may be raised for
          the first time on appeal), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1109 (1997).
                                          3