USA v. Jesus Arritola, No. 10-12686 (11th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 10-12686 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUNE 22, 2011 JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 1:93-cr-00606-DTKH-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JESUS ARRITOLA, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (June 22, 2011) Before EDMONDSON, HULL and MARTIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jesus Arritola, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his motion for a sentence modification.* No reversible error has been shown; we affirm. Arritola filed a post-conviction motion asking the district court to depart downward on his sentence (imposed for a drug crime) based on the harsh pre-trial conditions he faced in Colombia before being extradited to the United States and based on collateral immigration consequences. On appeal, Arritola repeats these arguments. Arritola has shown no basis for the district court s exercise of jurisdiction over his motion. The authority he cited in support of his motion -- 28 U.S.C. § 994(f) -- simply directs that the Sentencing Commission devote particular attention to reducing unwarranted sentencing disparities in promulgating its guidelines; it does not provide a remedy to reduce a sentence based on the circumstances of pretrial detention. Because Arritola was unentitled to relief under section 994(f), we must decide whether his motion is cognizable under a different remedial statutory framework. United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624-25 (11th Cir. 1990) (explaining that federal courts must look behind the label of a motion filed by a * Whether a district court has jurisdiction over a particular case is a question of law subject to plenary review. United States v. Maduno, 40 F.3d 1212, 1215 (11th Cir. 1994). 2 pro se inmate ). But even considering other mechanisms for sentence modifications, Arritola has failed to demonstrate a basis for the district court s jurisdiction. Arritola cited no amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that would allow for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He already has filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence that the district court denied on the merits, and he has received no permission to file a second motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a criminal defendant s motion as a second or successive section 2255 motion without certification). Arritola has not timely alleged arithmetical, technical, or other clear error in his sentence that would have allowed the district court to correct his sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a). And the government has filed no motion based on substantial assistance that would entitle him to relief under Rule 35(b). Because Arritola cannot show a basis for the district court s jurisdiction over his motion to reduce his sentence, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
