United States v. Jon Michael Agosta , 505 F. App'x 893 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-13163 Date Filed: 01/31/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13163
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:07-cr-60079-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JON MICHAEL AGOSTA,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 31, 2013)
Before WILSON, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-13163 Date Filed: 01/31/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Jon Michael Agosta, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion to reduce his 77-month sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B).
Agosta argues that § 3582(c)(1)(B), which allows a court to “modify an imposed
term of imprisonment to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by
Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,” gives the district court the
authority to reduce his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (2002). Specifically,
he contends that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 expressly permits a reduction of his sentence
because his sentence was enhanced for a predicate offense that this Circuit later
decided is not a crime of violence. The government responds that the district court
properly denied Agosta’s motion. Specifically, the government argues that the
district court lacked jurisdiction because Agosta did not file his § 2241 motion in
the district of his incarceration. We agree that the district court lacked jurisdiction
to consider Agosta’s motion and for that reason affirm the district court’s denial of
his motion.
I.
“We review de novo questions concerning the jurisdiction of the district
court.” United States v. Oliver, 148 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir. 1998). The
authority of a district court to modify a sentence is a question of law that is also
2
Case: 12-13163 Date Filed: 01/31/2013 Page: 3 of 4
subject to de novo review. See United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1194 n.9
(11th Cir. 2010).
“The authority of a district court to modify an imprisonment sentence is
narrowly limited by statute.” Id. at 1194–95. Specifically, § 3582(c) provides that
a district court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed”
unless: (1) the Director of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons moves to reduce the
defendant’s term of imprisonment; (2) a modification otherwise is expressly
permitted by statute or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35; or (3) the defendant
was sentenced based on a guideline range that subsequently was reduced by the
U.S. Sentencing Commission, and a reduction is consistent with the Commission’s
policy statements. See Id. at 1195. When a motion is filed under § 3582(c)(2), but
there is no statutory authority to modify the sentence, a district court lacks
jurisdiction to change the sentence. See United States v. Diaz-Clark, 292 F.3d
1310, 1316–19 (11th Cir. 2002).
Here, Agosta argues that § 2241 confers authority for the district court to
modify his sentence. Agosta concedes that “§ 2241’s application is generally
limited to the district in which a prisoner is confined,” but contends that this rule is
“not absolute.” However, our precedent instructs that courts outside the district of
a petitioner’s incarceration do not have jurisdiction over a petitioner’s § 2241
motion. Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991). The
3
Case: 12-13163 Date Filed: 01/31/2013 Page: 4 of 4
Supreme Court has explained that the habeas corpus provisions, including § 2241,
“contemplate a proceeding against some person who has the immediate custody of
the party detained, with the power to produce the body of such party before the
court or judge.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435, 124 S. Ct. 2711, 2717
(2004) (quotation marks omitted). Because Agosta filed his § 2241 motion in the
Southern District of Florida while incarcerated in the Middle District of Florida,
the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the motion. 1
For this reason, we affirm the district court’s denial of Agosta’s motion for a
sentence reduction.
AFFIRMED.
1
We are aware that Agosta was released from custody in the Middle District of Florida on
November 14, 2012. See Federal Bureau of Prisons, http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp
(last visited Dec. 17, 2012). We are also aware that his current address is within the Southern
District of Florida. Agosta has not raised the question of whether he may re-file his motion in
the Southern District of Florida, and we do not address it.
4