[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12686 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 22, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:93-cr-00606-DTKH-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JESUS ARRITOLA,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 22, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, HULL and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Arritola, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his motion for a sentence
modification.* No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
Arritola filed a post-conviction motion asking the district court to depart
downward on his sentence (imposed for a drug crime) based on the harsh pre-trial
conditions he faced in Colombia before being extradited to the United States and
based on collateral immigration consequences. On appeal, Arritola repeats these
arguments.
Arritola has shown no basis for the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction
over his motion. The authority he cited in support of his motion -- 28 U.S.C. §
994(f) -- simply directs that the Sentencing Commission devote “particular
attention” to “reducing unwarranted sentencing disparities” in promulgating its
guidelines; it does not provide a remedy to reduce a sentence based on the
circumstances of pretrial detention.
Because Arritola was unentitled to relief under section 994(f), we must
decide whether his motion is “cognizable under a different remedial statutory
framework.” United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624-25 (11th Cir. 1990)
(explaining that federal courts must “look behind the label of a motion filed by a
*
Whether a district court has “jurisdiction over a particular case is a question of law
subject to plenary review.” United States v. Maduno, 40 F.3d 1212, 1215 (11th Cir. 1994).
2
pro se inmate”). But even considering other mechanisms for sentence
modifications, Arritola has failed to demonstrate a basis for the district court’s
jurisdiction.
Arritola cited no amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that would allow
for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He already has filed a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence that the district court denied on the
merits, and he has received no permission to file a second motion. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(h); Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003)
(explaining that a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a criminal
defendant’s motion as a “second or successive” section 2255 motion without
certification). Arritola has not timely alleged “arithmetical, technical, or other
clear error” in his sentence that would have allowed the district court to correct his
sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a). And the government has filed no motion
based on substantial assistance that would entitle him to relief under Rule 35(b).
Because Arritola cannot show a basis for the district court’s jurisdiction
over his motion to reduce his sentence, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3