Case: 18-15171 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-15171
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:05-cr-80121-JIC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LINCOLN MOODY,
a.k.a. Jose,
a.k.a. Antonio Espinosa,
a.k.a. Lincoln Moody,
a.k.a. Rateek Allah,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 15, 2019)
Case: 18-15171 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 2 of 3
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lincoln Moody, a federal prisoner who uses the religious name Rateek Love
Allah, appeals pro se the denial of his postconviction motion to correct his
sentence. Allah alleged that he was erroneously sentenced in 2006 as a career
offender because his presentence investigation report misstated that he had a prior
conviction for robbery with a firearm when he actually had been convicted of
simple robbery. Allah requested that the district court correct his presentence
report and that the district court correct his sentence based on Rosales-Mireles v.
United States,
138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018). The district court ruled that it lacked
authority to grant Allah relief. We affirm.
The district court did not err. The district court could not correct a fact stated
in Allah’s presentence investigation report when he failed to object to it. See
United States v. Beckles,
565 F.3d 832, 844 (11th Cir. 2009) (“It is the law of this
circuit that a failure to object to allegations of fact in a PSI admits those facts for
sentencing purposes and precludes the argument that there was error in them.”).
The district court also lacked jurisdiction to alter Allah’s sentence. Allah filed his
motion long after the 14-day deadline in which to correct a sentence expired. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). No basis existed to modify Allah’s sentence in the absence
of either a motion from the Bureau of Prisons to reduce his sentence or an
2
Case: 18-15171 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 3 of 3
amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered his sentencing range. See
18
U.S.C. § 3582(c). Allah also was not entitled to postconviction relief based on
Molina-Martinez, which addressed whether a defendant whose sentence is based
on a plainly incorrect sentencing range was entitled to relief on direct appeal under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b),
138 S. Ct. at 1906–11. And Allah could
not move the district court to vacate his sentence because his motion would be
barred as successive. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2255. In any event, we have held that
errors in the calculation of an advisory guideline range for sentencing a career
offender are not cognizable in postconviction review. See Spencer v. United States,
773 F.3d 1132, 1135 (11th Cir. 2014) (en banc).
We AFFIRM the denial of Allah’s motion.
3
