United States of America v. Robert Marvin Harris

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 6, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-10630
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:99-cr-06064-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT MARVIN HARRIS,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 6, 2010)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Marvin Harris, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his
motion for resentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(7). Harris argues that his sentence

-- 1 of 2 --

was erroneously enhanced based on a prior conviction for a drug offense, his right
to due process was violated because his indictment was defective and the evidence
against him was insufficient, and his order of forfeiture should be vacated. We
affirm.
The district court did not err by dismissing Harris’s motion. A convict may
be resentenced when a conviction for a “serious drug offense that was a basis for
sentencing” is declared “unconstitutional or is vitiated on the explicit basis of
innocence,” 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(7), but Harris presented no evidence to the
district court, nor does he even argue to this Court, that a prior conviction has been
overturned. Even if we construe Harris’s motion liberally, we find no basis for
relief. The district court considered Harris’s arguments and found that none of his
issues were “cognizable under a different remedial statutory framework.” United
States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624–25 (11th Cir. 1990). Harris’s arguments are
successive to those raised in previous collateral proceedings.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Harris’s motion.
2

-- 2 of 2 --