United States v. Miguel Angel Pineda-Nunez
656 F. App'x 983
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Pineda-Nunez was sentenced in federal court to 36 months for illegal re-entry to run consecutive to an undischarged Florida state sentence for cocaine trafficking.
- He did not appeal his federal sentence.
- While serving the state term nearly four years later, he filed a pro se motion asking the district court to recommend a nunc pro tunc designation of a state institution so his federal sentence would run concurrently with his state term.
- The district court summarily denied the motion.
- The panel construed the motion as a request to modify the federal sentence (i.e., change from consecutive to concurrent) and evaluated whether the district court had jurisdiction to grant that relief.
- The appellate court concluded the district court lacked jurisdiction and vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could order or recommend a nunc pro tunc designation causing sentences to run concurrently | Pineda-Nunez asked the court to recommend a state facility designation so his federal term would be served in state prison concurrently with his state sentence | Implicit government position: the district court lacked authority to grant the requested retroactive designation/modification | The motion was effectively a request to modify the sentence, which the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant |
| Proper characterization of the pro se motion | The motion sought a judicial recommendation/designation to cause concurrency | The court treated it under governing law and precedent, recharacterizing pro se filings as appropriate | The court construed the motion as one to modify sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (sentence modification) |
| Whether § 3582(c) authorized relief | Pineda-Nunez relied on various statutes and BOP policy to justify relief | The cited statutes (sections concerning BOP authority and § 3584) did not authorize a district court to retroactively change concurrency; no BOP motion or applicable statutory/R.35 basis existed | § 3582(c) permits modification only in narrow, enumerated circumstances (BOP motion, specific statutory/Rule 35 authority, or Guidelines reduction); none applied, so no jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (courts may recharacterize pro se motions to fit proper legal category)
- United States v. Maduno, 40 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 1994) (jurisdictional questions reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Giraldo-Prado, 150 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 1998) (parties may raise jurisdiction at any time)
- Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc., 188 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 1999) (appellate jurisdiction to correct lower court's entertaining of suit when lower court lacked jurisdiction)
- United States v. Oliver, 148 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 1998) (de novo review of district court jurisdiction)
- United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (§ 3582(c) narrowly limits district court authority to modify sentences)
- United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 662 (11th Cir. 2014) (district court authority under § 3582(c) is jurisdictional)