United States v. Thompson , 202 F. App'x 838 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51597
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICHARD DEE THOMPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:92-CR-3-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Dee Thompson, federal prisoner # 55709-080, was
convicted in 1992 of conspiracy to import in excess of five
kilograms of cocaine. He appeals from the denial of a motion for
resentencing in which he sought relief pursuant to United States
v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). He argues that the district
court erred by summarily denying his motion without issuing a
written opinion.
The district court’s jurisdiction to correct or modify a
defendant’s sentence is limited to those specific circumstances
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-51597
-2-
enumerated by Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b). See United States
v. Bridges, 116 F.3d 1110, 1112 (5th Cir. 1997). Thompson does
not assert, and the record does not show, that his motion for
resentencing in the district court falls under any provision of
§ 3582. Although the motion could be construed as a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion, the district court did not suggest that it was so
construing the motion, and it did not provide Thompson notice.
See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003).
Consequently, the motion did not arise under § 2255.
Thompson’s motion was an unauthorized motion which the
district court was without jurisdiction to consider. See United
States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Although the
district court did not indicate whether it denied the motion on
its merits or for lack of jurisdiction, the denial of the motion
is affirmed on jurisdictional grounds. See id.AFFIRMED.