United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 12, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20885
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BILAL TROY FARAHKHAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:96-CR-24-1
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bilal Troy Farahkhan, federal prisoner # 72541-079, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his motion to modify his
sentence, purportedly filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b)(2)(B)
and FED. R. CRIM. P. 35. The Government argues that the district
court lacked jurisdiction to consider Farahkhan’s motion to
modify. As the Government notes, “§ 3582(b)(2)(B)” does not
exist. A district court may modify the imposed term of
imprisonment under limited circumstances. § 3582(c). Because
Farahkhan’s motion did not fall under any of the provisions of
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-20885
-2-
§ 3582(c), it was unauthorized and without jurisdictional basis.
See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994).
To the extent that the district court construed the motion as an
attempted successive § 2255 motion, dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction was proper because Farahkhan had not received
permission from this court to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion. See United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir.
2000).
The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is
therefore dismissed as frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Farahkhan 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.