United States v. Cartwright , 186 F. App'x 467 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20553
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PURVIS RAY CARTWRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:91-CR-179-1
USDC No. 4:94-CV-3178
--------------------
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Purvis Ray Cartwright, federal prisoner # 59478-079, appeals
the district court’s summary dismissal of his motion to modify
his sentence, purportedly filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(b)(2)(B).
The Government argues that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider Cartwright’s motion to modify. As the
Government notes, 18 U.S.C. “§ 3582(b)(2)(B)” does not exist. A
district court may modify the imposed term of imprisonment under
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-20553
-2-
limited circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Because
Cartwright’s motion did not fall under any of the provisions of
§ 3582(c), it was unauthorized and without jurisdictional basis.
United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994).
Moreover, it cannot be construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to
vacate, because Cartwright has already filed one § 2255 motion
and a second would be subject to the jurisdictional bar of the
successive-motion provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
See United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000).
Because Cartwright’s appeal is without arguable merit, we dismiss
the appeal as frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Cartwright is hereby warned that any further repetitious or
frivolous filings, including those attempting to circumvent
statutory restrictions on filing second or successive § 2255
motions, may result in the imposition of sanctions against him.
These sanctions may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and
restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and
any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.