UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JULIO JAIRO VELEZ-RENDON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
PER CURIAM:
Velez-Rendon appeals from the district court’s denial of his “Application Pursuant to Rule 32(c)(3)(D) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” At the time the district court entered its order, the court did not have the benefit of our opinion in United States v. Fischer, 821 F. 2d 557 (11th Cir.1987), in which we held the following:
Fed.R.Crim.P. 32, standing alone, does not provide the district court with jurisdiction to hear a motion making a post-judgment collateral attack on one’s sentence for a Rule 32 violation.
Id. at 558.
Nor can we consider appellant’s application as a motion to correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner under Fed.R. Crim.P. 35(a) because it was not filed within the required 120 days. If we were to treat the application as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 we would have to find that Velez-Rendon’s claims are not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding because the errors Velez-Rendon complains of do not qualify as “ ‘fundamental defect[s] which inherently result[J m a complete miscarriage of justice.’ ” Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 2305, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974) (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428, 82 S.Ct. 468, 471, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962)); see Hill, 368 U.S. at 424, 82 S.Ct. at 468 (sentencing court’s failure to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a) not cognizable under § 2255).
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the district court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schuck v. Habicht, 672 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…nd a liability policy critically affect whether an injured plaintiff has the right to recover directly against an insurer as a third-party beneficiary when no payment has been made by the insured. The eleventh circuit in Weeks v. Beryl Shipping Co., 845 F. 2d 304, 306 (11th Cir.1985), explained the distinctions between a liability policy and an indemnity policy based on Florida law: Under a liability policy, the insurer is liable for “damages for bodily injury or property damage for which any covered person…
-
Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2004)…rand jury was not cognizable under § 2255); Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 429, 82 S.Ct. 468, 472, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962) (sentencing court's failure to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a) not cognizable under § 2255); United States v. Velez-Rendon, 845 F. 2d 304, 304 (11th Cir.1988) ("If we were to treat the application as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 we would have to find that [the petitioner's] claims [that his sentence was illegal under Rule 32] are not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding ... b…
-
United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 975 (11th Cir. 1990)…32 on his direct appeal of his conviction. The district court properly declined to consider the merits of Khoury’s motions as the district court was without jurisdiction while Khoury’s case was on appeal to this court. United States v. Velez-Rendon, 845 F. 2d 304 (11th Cir.1988) (per curiam); United States v. Fischer, 821 F. 2d 557 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam). MISSING RECORD ALLEGATION Khoury alleges that the district court erred in ruling on motions without having the pleadings before the court. Khoury b…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1962)
- Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1974)
- United States v. Fischer, 821 F.2d 557 (11th Cir. 1987)