UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio De Jesus MUNOZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant, 599 F. App'x 939

PER CURIAM: Antonio Munoz-Rodriguez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his motion to reconsider his sentence for lack of jurisdiction. Munoz-Rodriguez moved to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), alleging that the district court unconstitutionally increased his mandatory-minimum sentence by sixty months under 18 U.S.C. § 924(

c) when it found that he brandished a firearm during his crime. According to Munoz-Rodriguez, the Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), makes clear that only a jury may determine facts which increase the mandatory-minimum sentence. Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm. We review de novo the question of whether the district court has jurisdiction to modify a sentence. See United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1194 n. 9 (11th Cir.2010).

Under § 3582(c), the district court may only modify a sentence in three limited circumstances: (1) on motion of the Bureau of Prisons to reduce a prisoner’s remaining time in custody; (2) in the case of a defendant whose guideline range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission; or (3) to the extent otherwise provided by statute or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. Rule 35 allows the court to (

a) correct an arithmetical, technical, or other clear error within fourteen days of sentencing, or (

b) reduce a sentence based on substantial assistance upon the government’s motion within one year of sentencing. Fed.R. Crim.P. 35. The district court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider Munoz-Rodriguez’s sentence under § 3582(c). The motion for reconsideration was not made by the BOP or the government. Munoz-Rodriguez’s motion was brought more than fourteen days after sentencing. Finally, his motion did not concern a guideline range that had been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Thus, Munoz-Rodriguez’s motion was based on an alleged constitutional violation to which § 3582(

c) is inapplicable. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir.2000). As suggested by the district court, his constitutional challenge might be properly made through another procedural vehicle, such as a timely motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Independent of that possibility, § 3582(

c) is not available to Munoz-Rodriguez on his current challenge. AFFIRMED. . The United States notes in its brief before this Court that, effective November 1, 2014, Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines may reduce the base offense level given to Munoz-Rodriguez’s sentence from 26 to 24. See UniteJ States Sentencing Guidelines § 2D 1.1 (c)(8). While the amendment became effective after the motion at issue here was filed and therefore does not impact our holding in this case, it may offer Munoz-Rodriguez relief in a future motion under § 3582(c)(2).