U.S. v. Powell

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael David POWELL…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 18, 2003

69 F. App'x 368 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion

69 Fed.Appx. 368 (9th Cir. 2003)UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Michael David POWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-35935.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.June 18, 2003

Submitted June 9, 2003. ^*

* This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Robert E. Jones, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-06242-REJ, CR-89-60105-REJ.

Before: RYMER, THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Michael David Powell appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for "compassionate release" and its dismissal of his fifth motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which challenges his 15-year sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act for being a felon in possession of a firearm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Powell's § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion, because Powell did not provide a motion from the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (stating that a court may modify a sentence "upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons"); United States v. Mullanix, 99 F.3d 323, 324 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that a district court may modify a sentence only when authorized by a statute or rule).

The district court also properly dismissed Powell's latest § 2255 motion, because it is successive and unauthorized. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (stating that successive § 2255 motions may not be filed in district court without prior authorization from the court of appeals). Were we to construe Powell's appeal as a request for authorization, we would deny the request, because the claims he seeks to raise do not meet the standards set forth in § 2255. SeeUnited States v. Lorentsen, 106 F.3d 278, 279 (9th Cir.1997) (order) (stating that successive § 2255 motions must rely on new evidence establishing that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty or on a new rule of constitutional law).

Thus, the district court properly denied Powell's requests for relief. ¹

1 All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.