USA v. Glenn Cox

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13521
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GLENN COX,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:88-cr-01013-AW-GRJ-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13521 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13521
Before WILLIAM PRYOR , Chief Judge, and J ORDAN and L AGOA , Cir-
cuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Glenn Cox appeals pro se the denial of his motion for a sen-
tence reduction under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. Pub.
L. No. 115-391, § 404(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. He argues that his
conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(e), for which he was sentenced as an armed career
criminal, violates the Second Amendment and that the district
court erred by concluding that the Act did not permit relief. He also
argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him as
an armed career criminal, id., because his conviction for a predicate
offense did not become final until after the grand jury returned its
superseding indictment. The government moves for summary af-
firmance. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th
Cir. 1969). We affirm.
We review whether a district court had the authority to
modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment under the Act de novo.
United States v. Jackson, 58 F.4th 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 2023). Alt-
hough district courts ordinarily lack the authority to modify a term
of imprisonment after its imposition, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the
Act permits district courts to reduce some sentences for offenses
involving crack cocaine, see First Step Act § 404(a).
The district court correctly determined that it lacked the au-
thority to reduce Cox’s sentence for the firearm offense, 18 U.S.C.
USCA11 Case: 23-13521 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-13521 Opinion of the Court 3
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(e), because it was not a “covered offense” under
the Act. See First Step Act § 404(a); United States v. Files, 63 F.4th
920, 930–31 (11th Cir. 2023) (holding that, even after Concepcion v.
United States, 597 U.S. 481 (2022), a district court may not reduce a
defendant’s sentence for non-covered offenses). Insofar as Cox ar-
gues that his conviction for the firearm offense is invalid because
the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose it, section 404 of the
Act does not permit relief, and he points to no intervening change
in controlling law that entitles him to a sentence reduction for this
offense. Any challenge to the validity of his conviction for the fire-
arm offense must be brought in a motion to vacate his sentence.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Because the government’s position is clearly correct as a
matter of law and there is no substantial question as to the outcome
of the case, we GRANT the motion for summary affirmance. See
Groendyke Transp., 406 F.2d at 1162.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-13521 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --