USA v. Crystal Mason-Hobb

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-11195 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 09/12/2014; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Ms. Crystal La Von Mason-Hobbs [7554433-2] [13-11195]

Case: 13-11195

Document: 00512743547

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/22/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-11195
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 22, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CRYSTAL LA VON MASON-HOBBS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CR-151-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Crystal La Von Mason-Hobbs, federal prisoner # 43617-177, pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and was sentenced within the
guidelines to 60 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
The district court also ordered her to pay $4,206,805.49 in restitution and a
$100 special assessment. After the district court denied her 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion, Mason-Hobbs filed a “Motion for Reconsideration and Sentence

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 13-11195

Document: 00512743547

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/22/2014

No. 13-11195
Reduction.” The district court denied the motion, and Mason-Hobbs appeals
from that ruling.
A district court may modify the imposed term of imprisonment under
limited circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Mason-Hobbs’s motion does not
fall under any of the provisions of § 3582(c), and she is precluded from
obtaining relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3742, as relief thereunder is reserved only
for direct appeals. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir.
1994). Moreover, the motion does not arise under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because the
district court did not suggest that it was so construing the motion and it did
not provide Mason-Hobbs notice. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375,
381-83 (2003). In sum, Mason-Hobbs’s motion seeking a reduction of her
sentence is an unauthorized motion without a jurisdictional basis. See Early,
27 F.3d at 142.

The district court’s judgment denying the motion is

AFFIRMED. Her motion for appointment is DENIED.

2