United States v. Vigil

Citations: 727 F. Supp. 2d 1132; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13370; 2010 WL 552605Docket: CR 05-2051 JB

Court: District Court, D. New Mexico; February 3, 2010; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Robert Vigil filed a motion on September 21, 2009, seeking clarification on his sentencing order, specifically regarding the fine imposed by the court. A hearing took place on January 20, 2010, where the court determined that the motion effectively requested a modification of the sentence rather than mere clarification. As a result, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to alter the fine amount and denied Vigil's motion in part while reserving judgment on other issues raised.

Vigil was convicted on September 30, 2006, for violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, as part of a twenty-four-count indictment. The statute mandates a fine for those convicted. During the January 24, 2007, sentencing hearing, the court initially considered a fine of $25,000 but ultimately imposed a total fine of $97,248.42, factoring in Vigil's resources and the cost of his incarceration. The Presentence Investigation Report indicated that any fine over $2,500 would accrue interest unless paid within 15 days post-judgment, a detail which went unchallenged by either party. 

The court's final judgment was appealed by both parties, but the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment on the relevant issues.

On October 6, 2008, the Supreme Court denied Vigil's petition for a writ of certiorari (U.S. 129 S.Ct. 281, 172 L.Ed.2d 149). Following this, on September 21, 2009, Vigil sought clarification on two sentencing issues: (1) the starting date for his imprisonment—either January 24, 2007 (house arrest) or April 9, 2007 (federal correctional facility); and (2) whether his fine was $97,248.42 or $25,000 plus $1,952.66 for each month imprisoned. The court planned to address these issues separately due to the time-sensitive nature of the fine question. 

During a hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Gerson contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over the fine issue because jurisdiction was lost once Vigil appealed the judgment. Gerson characterized Vigil's motion as an attempt to modify or correct the sentence rather than a mere clarification. 

The legal framework indicates that a district court cannot modify a sentence without statutory authorization. According to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), modifications can occur under specific circumstances, including motions from the Bureau of Prisons or if the sentencing range is lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits sentence reductions for clear errors or for substantial assistance, while Rule 36 allows for the correction of clerical errors at any time. Courts have recognized that fines can be modified under Rule 35(b). The Tenth Circuit has emphasized that courts must adhere to these statutory limits when considering sentence modifications.

The defendant, originally sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, sought re-sentencing after his supplier received probation for distributing cocaine. The court held a re-sentencing hearing 72 days post-original sentencing, resulting in a modified sentence of three years probation and six months of home detention. The district court cited its inherent jurisdiction and Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 as authority for this modification. However, the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Blackwell rejected this rationale, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction to resentence the defendant. It clarified that Rule 35 did not apply since the modification occurred beyond the seven-day window specified in Rule 35(a). Additionally, Rule 35(b) was found inapplicable as it allows only government motions for sentence reductions. Other cases cited supported the notion that courts cannot modify sentences based solely on equitable considerations. The Tenth Circuit emphasized that the limitations on re-sentencing also extend to fines, defining sentencing to include both imprisonment and fines as per 18 U.S.C. 3551. The Tenth Circuit affirmed that fines are considered a type of criminal sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, which provide frameworks for both imprisonment and fines, indicating that requests for fine reductions are treated similarly to requests for reductions in prison sentences.

A court may impose a term of supervised release following imprisonment for a felony or misdemeanor, as outlined in 18 U.S.C. 3583(a). While on supervised release, defendants must adhere to specific conditions, including not committing further crimes, abstaining from controlled substances, and cooperating with DNA collection, as stated in 18 U.S.C. 3583(d). A court can revoke supervised release if a defendant violates these conditions, based on a preponderance of evidence, resulting in potential imprisonment without credit for prior supervised release time.

Additionally, failure to pay imposed fines or restitution can lead to revocation under 18 U.S.C. 3613A, allowing courts to revoke supervised release for such defaults. District courts are responsible for ensuring compliance with supervised release conditions and may clarify these terms for defendants.

In the case of Vigil, he requests clarification on whether he is required to pay a fine of $97,248.42 or a reduced amount based on his actual time served in prison. He cites the court's previous order, which linked the fine to his imprisonment costs, and seeks a reduction. The United States contends that the court lacks jurisdiction to address this motion due to Vigil's appeal to the Tenth Circuit.

The Court lacks the authority to alter Vigil's sentencing fine of $97,248.42 as it is clearly stated in the Judgment. Addressing whether Vigil's sentence should be modified to $25,000.00 plus additional monthly fines would constitute an improper review of a previously imposed sentence, which is prohibited by law. A district court can only modify a sentence with statutory authorization, and since Vigil did not contest or appeal the original fine, the Court cannot provide the requested clarification. Prior requests for clarification by Vigil have been distinguished, with the current motion seeking a change to the established fine amount, contrary to Tenth Circuit law which disallows such modifications. Consequently, the Court denies Vigil's motion for clarification regarding the fine in the Judgment. Additionally, the Court notes that the timeframe for correcting clear errors has elapsed significantly, rendering any potential corrections moot.