Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a federal prisoner appeals the district court's denial of motions to correct his sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) and for the return of a seized airplane under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). The appellate court reviews the denials de novo, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and ultimately reverses, vacates in part, and remands the case for further proceedings. The court finds that the district court's application of an amended statute violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, as it was not in effect at the time of the prisoner's offense. This error, along with the improper imposition of a special parole term, requires resentencing. Additionally, the court identifies a lack of adequate notice in the forfeiture proceedings for the seized airplane, justifying the use of equitable jurisdiction under Rule 41(e). The case is remanded for the district court to address these issues in accordance with the appellate court's findings, correcting the sentence and further investigating the status of the airplane. The rulings are governed by the prior version of Rule 35(a), applicable to offenses committed before November 1, 1987. The decision is not intended for publication or citation beyond Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 permissions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Correction of Illegal Sentence under Prior Rule 35(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the prior version of Rule 35(a) to correct the illegal sentence since the offenses occurred before November 1, 1987.
Reasoning: The prior version of Rule 35(a), allowing for correction of illegal sentences at any time, is applicable since Traslavina's offenses occurred before November 1, 1987.
Equitable Jurisdiction under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court held that equitable jurisdiction was appropriate due to the government's failure to provide adequate notice of forfeiture proceedings regarding the seized airplane.
Reasoning: Traslavina's appeal regarding the denial of his Rule 41(e) motion for the return of his airplane is based on inadequate notice of forfeiture proceedings, which the government admits it did not provide.
Ex Post Facto Clause Violation in Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that the district court's application of an amended statute not in effect at the time of the offense violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, necessitating resentencing.
Reasoning: Traslavina argues that his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 846 is illegal because it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court incorrectly applied an amended version of the statute that was not in effect at the time of his offense.
Special Parole Term Errorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The addition of a special parole term after the initial sentencing was erroneously imposed, warranting correction upon resentencing.
Reasoning: Additionally, the court improperly added a term of special parole after Traslavina's initial sentencing, an action conceded by the government to be erroneous.