[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-10704 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 14, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
ACTING CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 08-00383-CR-2-LSC-JEO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES EUGENE KNIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(January 14, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Eugene Knight appeals the sentences resulting from his conviction
for possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (count one), possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)
(count two), and possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (count three).
Although Knight first argues that the district court erroneously denied his
post-conviction motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) to correct
his sentence, we have no jurisdiction to consider this claim under the facts of this
case. See United States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005).1
Accordingly, we must dismiss Knight’s claim pertaining to the denial of his Rule
35(a) motion.
Knight also argues that the oral pronouncement of the sentences by the
district court and the written judgment of sentence were unlawfully inconsistent,
ambiguous, vague, and uncertain. We do not find reversible error.
At sentencing, the Judge orally stated:
I specifically find that . . . the three federal sentences that I’ve given you are
to run consecutive to any other state sentence or any other sentence out
1
Knight followed the same erroneous procedure as did the defendant in Cartright: he
filed his appeal and his Rule 35(a) motion on the same day. He then neglected to amend (or file
anew) his notice of appeal to include the order denying his motion. Knight has therefore never
appealed the denial of his Rule 35(a) motion, and therefore we have no jurisdiction over this
claim.
2
there. . . . [Y]ou may have state sentences that you might either be serving[,]
or I don’t know what time you are going to get for anything else that might
be up here, if anything, but it doesn’t matter to me. I am ordering it [to] run
consecutive to all those times.
Doc. 52 at 17 (emphasis added). The written judgment stated:
“This sentence shall run consecutively to sentences imposed in Jefferson
County Alabama cases DC02-634, DC02-1018, CC05-4816, and any other
sentences in state court.”
Doc. 42 at 2 (emphasis added).
Knight argues that his sentence is ambiguous because“any other sentence”
could refer to state or federal sentences, whether previously imposed, pending, or
to be imposed in the future. In considering the totality of this record, we find no
inconsistency or ambiguity. Upon questioning from Knight regarding the
relationship between the federal sentence and Knight’s existing state sentence, the
judge responded:
I don't intend for it to being running until he gets back to federal custody. . . .
I have ordered it to run consecutive to his state sentence. . . . I have no
control over state judges, what they do as far as running any time concurrent
with my time, but I am not running my time concurrent with their time."
Doc. 52 at 19-20. After more colloquy on the same issue, the judge again repeated
that the federal sentences would "run consecutive to state time, not concurrent to
state time." Id. at 21. This record makes clear that the district judge intended the
federal sentences he imposed to run consecutive to state sentences. Knight’s
3
sentence was therefore neither vague, ambiguous, nor uncertain.
AFFIRMED.
4