United States v. Miranda-Gonzalez ( 2000 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1520
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
JESUS MIRANDA-GONZALEZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Lynch and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
Jesus Miranda-Gonzalez on brief pro se.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-
Pacheco, Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Perez-
Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
December 21, 2000
Per Curiam. Pro se appellant Jesus Miranda-
Gonzalez appeals a district court order that denied his
motion for reconsideration of an order that denied his
motion to vacate a $5000 fine that appellant must pay as a
sanction for distributing cocaine. See Miranda-Gonzalez v.
United States, 181 F.3d 164, 165 (1 st Cir. 1999). Having
thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties' briefs on
appeal, we conclude that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider appellant's motions. Contrary to
appellant's contentions on appeal, 18 U.S.C. § 3742 provided
no basis for jurisdiction, for this statute only authorizes
review of a sentence on direct appeal. Appellant failed to
take such an appeal following his 1993 conviction, and he
cannot attack his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 at this
late stage. Similarly, neither 28 U.S.C. § 2255 nor 18
U.S.C. § 3573 provide an avenue for relief. See, e.g.,
United States v. Merric, 166 F.3d 406, 412 (1st Cir. 1999);
Smullen v. United States, 94 F.3d 20, 25-26 (1st Cir. 1996);
United States v. Linker, 920 F.2d 1, 1-2 (7 th Cir. 1990);
United States v. Michaud, 901 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1990). And
since appellant committed the underlying drug offense long
after November 1, 1987, he may not seek to revise his
-2-
sentence under the former Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. The present
version of this rule also provides appellant no relief.
In view of the foregoing, the district court's
order denying appellant's motion for reconsideration is
vacated and the court is directed to dismiss the motion for
lack of jurisdiction. See Local Rule 27(c).
-3-