United States v. Scaff-Martinez

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Scaff-Martinez

137 F. App'x 239

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 2005

DocketNo. 04-16479; D.C. Docket No. 90-06036-CR-JAG

StatusPublished

This text of 137 F. App'x 239 (United States v. Scaff-Martinez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Scaff-Martinez, 137 F. App'x 239 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gabriel Alvaro Seaff-Martinez appeals the district court’s November 10, 2004, order denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. A district court does not have jurisdiction to rule in a case that is on appeal, despite a decision by our court, until a mandate has been issued. Zaklama v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 906 F.2d 645, 649 (11th Cir.1990). We did not issue our mandate as to the initial appeal of Appellant’s § 3582 motion until November 16, 2004. Therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter its November 10, 2004 order. Appellant’s filing of a motion for reconsideration in the district [240]*240court on November 22, 2004, does not cure the district court’s initial jurisdictional deficiency. Accordingly, the district court’s orders of November 10, 2004 and February 3, 2005 are VACATED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Gabriel Alvaro Seaff-Martinez appeals the district court’s November 10, 2004, order denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. A district court does not have jurisdiction to rule in a case that is on appeal, despite a decision by our court, until a mandate has been issued. Zaklama v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 906 F.2d 645, 649 (11th Cir.1990). We did not issue our mandate as to the initial appeal of Appellant’s § 3582 motion until November 16, 2004. Therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter its November 10, 2004 order. Appellant’s filing of a motion for reconsideration in the district [240]*240court on November 22, 2004, does not cure the district court’s initial jurisdictional deficiency. Accordingly, the district court’s orders of November 10, 2004 and February 3, 2005 are VACATED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 F. App'x 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-scaff-martinez-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack