United States v. Michael Athony Phillips , 404 F. App'x 422 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-13324 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar DECEMBER 8, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 0:07-cr-60007-FAM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ANTHONY PHILLIPS,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 8, 2010)
Before BLACK, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Phillips appeals pro se the denial of his motion to revisit his
sentence. Phillips argues that the district court lacked authority to sentence him as
a career offender because another court had ruled that his two prior felony
convictions were related. We affirm.
The district court did not err because Phillips was not entitled to any form of
cognizable relief. Even if we look “behind the label of” Phillips’s motion, his
action is not “cognizable under a different remedial statutory framework.” United
States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624–25 (11th Cir. 1990). The district court lacked
jurisdiction to modify Phillips’s sentence more than seven days after it was
imposed. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) (2007). Phillips could not obtain relief under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 because he sought “to make a substantive
alteration to [his] criminal sentence,” United States v. Pease, 331 F.3d 809, 816
(11th Cir. 2003), and a motion for relief from his sentence would be dismissed as
successive, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531–32,
125 S. Ct. 2641, 2647–48 (2005); Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290, 1293
(11th Cir. 2007). Phillips also could not obtain a writ of habeas corpus because
his petition would be barred as successive and he does not seek relief based on a
new rule of constitutional law or newly discovered evidence. See 28 U.S.C. §§
2241, 2255.
We AFFIRM the denial of Phillips’s motion.
2