[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 26, 2010
No. 09-15977 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 90-00032-CR-KLR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL MALGOZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 26, 2010)
Before BLACK, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Malgoza appeals the denial of his second motion to reduce his
sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We affirm.
In 1997, Malgoza moved to reduce his sentence of life imprisonment based
on Amendment 505 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The
district court denied the motion. The district court considered the quantity of
cocaine involved in Malgoza’s drug offenses and criminal history, see 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a), and determined that Malgoza’s sentence “was fair and just.” Malgoza did
not appeal the decision.
In 2009, Malgoza filed a “renewed motion for reduction of sentence” and
repeated the arguments made in his first motion to reduce. The district court
denied Malgoza’s motion based on lack of jurisdiction. In the alternative, the
district court ruled that it was bound by the “law of the case” and, if not, “it was
“exercising its discretion [by] refus[ing] to reduce” Malgoza’s sentence.
Malgoza’s second motion to reduce was barred by the law of the case. The
district court rejected Malgoza’s first request to reduce his sentence, and Malgoza
failed to appeal that decision. See United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d
1556, 1560–61 (11th Cir. 1997). Malgoza’s alleged “new evidence” also was
available when he moved to reduce his sentence in 1997.
The denial of Malgoza’s successive motion to reduce his sentence is
AFFIRMED.
2