[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-12955 OCTOBER 5, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20964-PAS-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
RAMON CANTILLO-MARTINEZ,
lllllllll Defendant–Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 5, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ramon Cantillo-Martinez (Cantillo) pleaded guilty to conspiring to affect
interstate commerce by threats or violence by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951(a), attempting to interfere with interstate commerce by threats or violence
by robbery also in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), conspiring to possess with
intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841 and 846, attempting to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more
of cocaine also in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, and possessing a firearm
in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Cantillo was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. After he was sentenced,
Cantillo filed a notice of appeal and his counsel has since filed an Anders brief.
While Cantillo’s appeal was pending the government filed a Rule 35(b)
motion in the district court to reduce his sentence because of his substantial
assistance to the government. The district court granted that motion and reduced
his sentence to 110 months’ imprisonment. But because Cantillo’s appeal was still
pending when the district court granted the motion, the district court did not have
jurisdiction to reduce his sentence. See United States v. Russell, 776 F.2d 955,
956 (11th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we deny his counsel’s Anders motion, vacate
Cantillo’s sentence and remand for the limited purpose of resentencing in
accordance with the district court’s attempted resentencing. Cf. United States v.
Turchen, 187 F.3d 735, 743 (7th Cir. 1999).
2
DENIED in part, VACATED in part and REMANDED.
3