United States v. Antoine Dixson , 314 F. App'x 197 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPT 9, 2008
No. 08-11343 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 98-00401-CR-SH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTOINE DIXSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 9, 2008)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Antoine Dixson appeals pro se the denial of his motion challenging the
enhancement of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. §
924(e)(1). The district court denied Dixson’s motion. We vacate that order and
remand with instructions to dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
We review de novo the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court.
United States v. Moore, 443 F.3d 790, 793 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court does
not have authority to modify a sentence, except to the extent provided by the
federal statutory provisions that control sentencing and the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We have stated that federal courts have
“an obligation to look behind the label of a motion filed by a pro se inmate and
determine whether the motion is, in effect, cognizable under a different remedial
statutory framework.” United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624–25 (11th Cir.
1990).
The district court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain
Dixson’s motion. Dixson was sentenced in 2000, filed a collateral challenge to his
sentence in 2002 that was denied on the merits, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and has not
obtained permission from this Court to file a successive motion, id. §
2244(b)(3)(A). Dixson is not entitled to pursue relief under the savings clause
because he did not allege in his motion that a decision of the Supreme Court
applies retroactively to establish that he was convicted for a nonexistent offense.
2
id. § 2241.
Even if we construe Dixson’s filing as a motion for modification of his
sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582, the district court lacked the authority to entertain the
motion. The government did not file a motion to reduce Dixson’s sentence and
Dixson’s motion was filed more than seven days after sentencing. See id. §
3582(b)(2); Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), (b); United States v. Morrison, 204 F.3d 1091,
1093 (11th Cir. 2000). Dixson did not identify an amendment to the Sentencing
Guidelines that applies retroactively to lower his guideline range, 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2), and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons did not move to reduce
Dixson’s sentence, id. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
The district court technically erred in its disposition of Dixson’s motion.
Because the district court denied, rather than dismissed, Dixson’s motion, we
vacate its order and remand with instructions to dismiss the motion for lack of
jurisdiction.
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
3