U.S. v. Fischer, 86-3150
Decision Date | 14 July 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 86-3150,86-3150 |
Citation | 821 F.2d 557 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Allan FISCHER, Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Judy S. Hoyer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Roberta M. Klosiewicz, Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before RONEY, Chief Judge, HILL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Allan Fischer, a federal prisoner serving two concurrent four-year sentences, filed two pro se motions in the district court purportedly brought under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32. Fischer sought resentencing and correction of alleged erroneous information in his presentence investigation (PSI) report. The district court denied both motions and Fischer appealed. We remand the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Fischer pled guilty to three counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1343, and received sentences totaling four years of imprisonment, plus five years of probation. Approximately ten months after sentencing, Fischer filed his motions asserting a Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 violation. Specifically, Fischer alleged that the PSI report contained a victim impact statement from E.F. Hutton, Fischer's former employer, which included significant misstatements of fact and that the PSI report improperly contained references to amounts of money he fraudulently acquired that exceeded the amounts for the offenses to which he had plead guilty. The motion claimed that the sentencing judge failed to follow the mandates of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3) when he considered the report at sentencing.
Rule 32 provides the procedures for sentencing and for the making of a presentence report, and outlines the matters that must be considered by a district court in fixing a criminal sentence. This Court has never addressed the question of whether a district court has jurisdiction to grant relief on a motion brought solely pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 as an attack on one's sentence after sentence has been imposed.
One court has held that Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 does not provide any jurisdiction for a district court to hear such a motion. United States v. Burkhead, 567 F.Supp. 1425, 1427 (W.D.Mo.1983) (). Other courts appear to agree. See, e.g. United States v. Ursillo, 786 F.2d 66 (2d Cir.1986) (); United States v. Williams, 618 F.Supp. 1419, 1420 (E.D.Va.1985) (, )aff'd, 785 F.2d 306 (4th Cir.1986). Cf. United States v. Leath, 711 F.2d 119 (8th Cir.1983).
We hold that 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.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 provides the jurisdictional base for correction or reduction of a sentence. After a sentence has been imposed, however, Rule 35 motions would have to have been brought within 120 days. Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). Cf. United States v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gonzalez v. U.S.
...Id. Thus, the reference to the treatment of the Rule 32 motion as a § 2241 petition was mere dicta. Moreover, the court relied on United States v. Fischer for support. See 821 F.2d 557, 559 (11th Cir.1987). In that case, a challenge to a presentence report exceeded the time limits imposed b......
-
U.S. v. Cooks, Crim. Action No. 95-00112 (CRR).
...915 F.2d 622, 625 (11th Cir.1990) (treating defendant's Rule 35(a) motion as cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255); United States v. Fischer, 821 F.2d 557, 558 (11th Cir.1987) (ruling that both § 2255 and Rule 35 may provide jurisdictional base for challenging sentence). However, because the d......
-
United States v. Brumley
...challenge the accuracy of information in the PSR] and hence we construe the motion as a § 2255 petition."), and United States v. Fischer, 821 F.2d 557, 558-59 (11th Cir. 1987) (noting that while Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 did not provide jurisdiction for petitioner's motion, "28 U.S.C. § 2255 may ......
-
U.S. v. MacPherson
...to hear a motion making a post-judgment collateral attack on one's sentence for a Rule 32 violation." United States v. Fischer, 821 F.2d 557, 558 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). See also United States v. Engs, 884 F.2d 894, 895 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Giaimo, 880 F.2d 1563 (2d Cir.......