[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-13673 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JAN 18, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 4:99-cr-10035-KMM-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JERMAINE MATHIS,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lDefendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 18, 2011)
Before BLACK, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Mathis, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion to revisit his 262-month prison sentence, imposed approximately 7
years earlier, after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to distribute and possess
powder and crack cocaine. Mathis raises substantive challenges to the denial of
his motion to revisit arguing, inter alia, that the Government breached a
stipulation entered into by both parties regarding the amounts and types of drugs
involved in his offense.1 The Government responds that, pursuant to the
unambiguous language of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider Mathis’s motion to revisit his sentence.
We review “de novo questions concerning the jurisdiction of the district
court.” United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1194 n.9 (11th Cir. 2010).
Whether a district court has authority to modify and vacate a sentence is a question
of law subject to de novo review. See id.
As we have recently held,
The authority of a district court to modify an
imprisonment sentence [once it has been imposed] is
narrowly limited by statute. Specifically, [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3582(c) provides that a court may not modify an
imprisonment sentence except in these three circumstances:
(1) where the Bureau of Prisons has filed a motion and
either extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a
reduction or the defendant is at least 70 years old and
meets certain other requirements, see 18 U.S.C.
1
We decline to address the substantive challenges to the denial of Mathis’s motion to
revisit based on our decision to vacate and remand.
2
§ 3582(c)(1)(A); (2) where another statute or Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 35 expressly permits a sentence
modification, see id. § 3582(c)(1)(B); or (3) where a
defendant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment
based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered
by the Commission and certain other requirements are met,
see id. § 3582(c)(2).
Phillips, 597 F.3d at 1194-95; see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
We conclude that none of the circumstances allowing a district court to
modify a sentence are present in the instant case. Although the district court
ultimately denied Mathis’s motion to revisit his sentence, it did not have
jurisdiction to consider the motion on its merits. Accordingly, we vacate the
district court’s order, and remand for the district court to dismiss the motion for
lack of jurisdiction.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3