United States v. Ronald Ray Langdon , 379 F. App'x 886 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 18, 2010
No. 09-14179 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 02-00122-CR-T-24-EAJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALD RAY LANGDON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(May 18, 2010)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Ray Langdon appeals pro se the denial of his petition for relief under
the All Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Langdon sought reconsideration of his
motion to reduce his sentence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We affirm.
Langdon has unsuccessfully attempted on several occasions to reduce his
sentence. After Langdon was convicted of conspiring to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine hydrochloride, cocaine base, and marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§
841(b)(1)(A), (B), 846, we affirmed his sentence of 360 months of imprisonment,
United States v. Langdon, No. 03-15131, slip op. at 16–17 (11th Cir. Sept. 20,
2005). Langdon next moved to vacate his sentence on the ground that his sentence
had been enhanced in violation of United States v. Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.
Ct. 2348 (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied relief. Later,
Langdon moved to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 706 to the
Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied
Langdon’s motion, and we affirmed. United States v. Langdon, No. 08-16297
(11th Cir. Apr. 10, 2009).
Recently, Langdon petitioned for a “[w]rit of audita querela, or coram nobis,
or prohibition, or mandamus” under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and
requested that the district court “reopen [his] § 3582 motion” and reduce his
sentence based on a reduction given to his codefendant, Albert Jones. Langdon
2
also reasserted his argument that his sentence violated Apprendi. The district court
denied the petition and ruled that the “facts and amount of cocaine for which
Langdon [and Jones] [were] held responsible differ[ed] . . . .” Langdon moved for
reconsideration, which the district court denied. The district court explained that
Langdon and Jones had the “same base offense level and . . . amount of drugs for
which they were held responsible” and, although the court had “erred in reducing
Jones’s sentence,” that error did not provide a “reason to reduce Langdon’s
sentence.”
The district court did not err by denying Langdon’s petition under the All
Writs Act, which does not confer jurisdiction to reconsider a motion to reduce a
sentence. See In re Hill, 437 F.3d 1080, 1083 (11th Cir. 2006) (the All Writs Act
“empowers a federal court—in a case in which it is already exercising subject
matter jurisdiction—to enter such orders as are necessary to aid it in the exercise of
such jurisdiction”). Even if we were to treat Langdon’s petition as a motion for
reconsideration, the motion was untimely because it was filed more than 10 days
after the district court denied Langdon’s motion to reduce his sentence. See United
States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1196–99 (11th Cir. 2010).
The denial of Langdon’s petition is AFFIRMED.
3