Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by an individual sentenced to 46 months for reentering the United States without permission, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The central issue is whether a district court retains jurisdiction to correct a sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c) if the correction occurs beyond seven days after the initial oral sentence. Originally sentenced to 24 months, the appellant's sentence was vacated and increased to 46 months due to a mutual mistake identified by the court. However, this correction occurred thirteen days after the original oral sentencing. The appellate court concluded that the seven-day limitation under Rule 35(c) is jurisdictional, and the period initiates upon the oral pronouncement of the sentence, not the subsequent written judgment. This interpretation aligns with established circuit precedent, emphasizing the finality of sentences and the narrow scope of Rule 35(c) for correcting clear errors. Consequently, the district court's attempt to resentence was deemed void for lack of jurisdiction, necessitating the reinstatement of the original 24-month sentence. The case was vacated and remanded for reimposition of the initial sentence.
Legal Issues Addressed
Commencement of the Seven-Day Period under Rule 35(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that the seven-day period for correcting a sentence under Rule 35(c) begins with the oral pronouncement of the sentence, not the written judgment.
Reasoning: The prevailing view among circuits is that the seven-day window opens upon the oral imposition of sentence. The rationale is that the court and counsel are equally capable of identifying errors immediately after the oral sentence as they would be after the written judgment.
Correction of Sentences under Rule 35(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the district court lacked jurisdiction to correct a sentence beyond the seven-day period prescribed by Rule 35(c).
Reasoning: The case addresses whether a district court can correct a sentence under Rule 35(c) if it sets the sentence aside within seven days of the initial oral pronouncement but does not impose a new sentence until after that period. The court concludes 'no' to this jurisdictional question.
Finality of Sentences and Rule 35(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Rule 35(c) limits the court's ability to modify a sentence to corrections of clear errors within a narrow timeframe, reinforcing the finality of determinate sentencing.
Reasoning: The Committee note regarding Rule 35(c) clarifies that this rule is intended to provide limited authority for correcting sentences and does not allow for indefinite sentencing adjustments based on a written judgment.
Jurisdictional Nature of Rule 35(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The seven-day limitation for correcting sentences under Rule 35(c) is considered a jurisdictional restriction, which cannot be waived by the defendant.
Reasoning: Morrison's failure to raise the seven-day limitation issue in the district court does not constitute a waiver since jurisdictional matters can be addressed at any time.