USA v. Lincoln Moody, No. 17-13756 (11th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 10, 2018.
Download PDF
Case: 18-15171 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-15171 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:05-cr-80121-JIC-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LINCOLN MOODY, a.k.a. Jose, a.k.a. Antonio Espinosa, a.k.a. Lincoln Moody, a.k.a. Rateek Allah, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (August 15, 2019) Case: 18-15171 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 2 of 3 Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Lincoln Moody, a federal prisoner who uses the religious name Rateek Love Allah, appeals pro se the denial of his postconviction motion to correct his sentence. Allah alleged that he was erroneously sentenced in 2006 as a career offender because his presentence investigation report misstated that he had a prior conviction for robbery with a firearm when he actually had been convicted of simple robbery. Allah requested that the district court correct his presentence report and that the district court correct his sentence based on Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018). The district court ruled that it lacked authority to grant Allah relief. We affirm. The district court did not err. The district court could not correct a fact stated in Allah’s presentence investigation report when he failed to object to it. See United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 844 (11th Cir. 2009) (“It is the law of this circuit that a failure to object to allegations of fact in a PSI admits those facts for sentencing purposes and precludes the argument that there was error in them.”). The district court also lacked jurisdiction to alter Allah’s sentence. Allah filed his motion long after the 14-day deadline in which to correct a sentence expired. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). No basis existed to modify Allah’s sentence in the absence of either a motion from the Bureau of Prisons to reduce his sentence or an 2 Case: 18-15171 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 3 of 3 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered his sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Allah also was not entitled to postconviction relief based on Molina-Martinez, which addressed whether a defendant whose sentence is based on a plainly incorrect sentencing range was entitled to relief on direct appeal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), 138 S. Ct. at 1906–11. And Allah could not move the district court to vacate his sentence because his motion would be barred as successive. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2255. In any event, we have held that errors in the calculation of an advisory guideline range for sentencing a career offender are not cognizable in postconviction review. See Spencer v. United States, 773 F.3d 1132, 1135 (11th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We AFFIRM the denial of Allah’s motion. 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.
