[DO NOT PUBLISH]
`
`A the
`Uniterr States Court of Appeals
`For the Llewenth Cirruit
`
`No. 24-11466
`
`Non-Argument Calendar
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
`Versus
`
`ROBERT KENNETH DECKER,
`a.k.a. DigitalPossi2014,
`
`Defendant-Appellant.
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of Florida
`D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20769-DMM-1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Opinion of the Court 24-11466
`
`Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
`PER CURIAM:
`
`Seven years after Robert Decker pleaded guilty to
`conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and conspiracy to
`commit money laundering, he filed a motion to correct inaccurate
`information in his presentence investigation report “pursuant to
`the Privacy Act of 1974 and 5 U.S.C. § 552a.” He said that he was
`incorrectly assigned three criminal history points in his presentence
`investigation report. Decker now appeals from the district court’s
`denial of the motion. But because the district court did not have
`jurisdiction to consider the motion, we vacate its order and remand
`
`so that the motion can be dismissed.
`
`The Privacy Act—the statute Decker purported to bring his
`motion under—is a civil statute that “allows individuals to sue the
`federal government when it willfully mishandles their personal
`information.” Santos v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp., LLC, 90
`F.4th 1144, 1156 (11th Cir. 2024). It does not provide a source of
`authority for a district court to amend a presentence investigation
`report. And although federal courts have “an obligation to look
`behind the label of a motion filed by a pro se inmate and determine
`whether the motion is, in effect, cognizable under a different
`remedial statutory framework,” no other statute provided the
`district court with jurisdiction to hear the motion. United States v.
`Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624-25 (11th Cir. 1990).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24-11466 Opinion of the Court 3
`
`In the government’s opposition to Decker’s motion, it
`construed his filing as a motion to reduce his sentence under 18
`U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). But Decker has since made clear that he is “in
`no way seeking a sentence reduction,” so § 3582 cannot provide the
`basis for the court’s jurisdiction. Nor can Rule 32. That rule, which
`governs objections to presentence investigation reports, does not
`provide a district court with jurisdiction to hear a post-judgment
`motion to correct “alleged erroneous information” in a
`presentence investigation report. United States v. Fischer, 821 F.2d
`557, 558 (11th Cir. 1987). Finally, Decker’s motion cannot be
`construed as a § 2255 motion because he previously filed a § 2255
`motion and did not obtain authorization from this Court to file a
`second or successive motion. See United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d
`
`1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005).
`
`* * *
`
`We VACATE the district court’s order and REMAND with
`
`instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`