Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-19-01621/USCOURTS-ca7-19-01621-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adron H. Tancil
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Argued February 13, 2020 

Decided June 15, 2020 

Before 

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge 

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge 

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge

No. 19-1621 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ADRON H. TANCIL, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Indiana, Hammond Division. 

No. 2:13-CR-111 

Philip P. Simon, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

 Adron Tancil pleaded guilty to RICO conspiracy and murder. He claims the 

district judge pronounced a clear sentence at the sentencing hearing but then issued a 

written judgment effectively adding about five years to the sentence. We vacate and 

remand. 

I. Background 

 In 2003, Tancil and co-conspirators shot and killed a man they suspected of 

stealing a Mexican drug cartel shipment of cocaine. No one was immediately charged 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 19-1621 Document: 34 Filed: 06/15/2020 Pages: 6
No. 19-1621 Page 2 

with the murder. 

 In 2010, Tancil severely beat his girlfriend. An Indiana jury found him guilty of 

attempted murder and criminal confinement and the judge sentenced him to 30 years. 

 In August 2013, while Tancil was in state custody for the 2010 attempted murder, 

the federal government charged him with various crimes, including the 2003 murder. 

The federal magistrate judge granted the government’s motion for a writ of habeas corpus 

ad prosequendum. Tancil appeared in federal court on November 19, 2013, via the writ. 

 Tancil entered into a plea agreement. The government agreed to various terms 

favorable to Tancil, he agreed to plead guilty to two counts, and he waived certain 

appellate rights: “I expressly waive my right to appeal or to contest my conviction and 

all components of my sentence or the manner in which my conviction or my sentence 

was determined or imposed, to any Court on any ground other than a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel ... .” On May 27, 2016, Tancil pleaded guilty to RICO 

conspiracy and murder. 

 The district judge held the sentencing hearing on March 28, 2019. Tancil 

confirmed his anticipated release date from state custody was November 2024. The 

judge announced a below-Guideline sentence of “216 months. It will be 108 months on 

[each count] to run consecutive with one another, but the entirety of the 216 months will 

run concurrent to the time that he served in his state sentence. And I’ll make sure I 

delineate all of that in the judgment and commitment order.” 

 Defense counsel asked for a recommendation Tancil receive credit for time served 

since being in federal custody. The prosecutor agreed, and said he thought it mandatory. 

The judge said: 

I think it depends on when he was writted into federal custody ... but that 

will be up [to] the Bureau of Prisons to actually calculate, but that’s the 

intention of the sentence I’m announcing today. And I’ll make sure 

that—in fact, it was November 19th of 2013 was the date he was writted 

out and brought into federal custody, according to the cover page of the 

presentence report. So I will make sure the J and C reflects all of that so he 

gets full credit, okay. 

 The judge entered a written judgment four days later, on April 1, 2019. It said 

Tancil was sentenced to 216 months, to be served concurrently with the state sentence. It 

Case: 19-1621 Document: 34 Filed: 06/15/2020 Pages: 6
No. 19-1621 Page 3 

recommended to the BOP that Tancil receive “credit for time served while in federal 

custody.” On April 29, 2019, the United States Marshals returned Tancil to the Indiana 

correctional facility. 

 The BOP calculated Tancil’s federal release date as July 28, 2034. Tancil argues the 

written judgment does not match the oral pronouncement, and the release date would 

hold him in confinement about five years too long. The government acknowledges the 

BOP’s calculation seems to include no credit for the period when Tancil was subject to 

the writ between November 2013 and March 2019. 

II. Waiver? 

 First we must address whether Tancil waived this appeal. In his plea agreement, 

Tancil waived his right to appeal “all components of [his] sentence or the manner in 

which [his] sentence was determined or imposed.” At the change-of-plea hearing, the 

judge told Tancil: 

[U]nder the terms of this plea agreement, it says that you are expressly 

waiving, that means you’re giving up, your right to appeal any decision 

that I make that either leads to your conviction or the sentence that you 

ultimately receive. And essentially what that means is that I’m the last 

judge who is going to make any decisions on your case; and if you are 

unhappy or disagree with something that I do, you are stuck with those 

decisions. You are not going to be able to appeal them to a higher court. Do 

you understand that? 

Tancil said he understood and said he was giving these rights up knowingly and 

voluntarily. 

 We interpret plea agreements under “ordinary principles of contract law, though 

with an eye to the special public-interest concerns that arise in this context.” United States 

v. Malone, 815 F.3d 367, 370 (7th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted). We allow 

“unambiguous terms in the plea agreement their plain meaning” and dismiss an appeal 

falling within the waiver’s scope. Id.

 This appeal does not fall under the waiver. Tancil is not appealing the 

components of his sentence or the manner in which his sentence was determined or 

imposed. Rather, he merely seeks the imposition of his actual sentence. His argument on 

appeal is that the oral sentence is unambiguous and therefore is the actual sentence, and 

Case: 19-1621 Document: 34 Filed: 06/15/2020 Pages: 6
No. 19-1621 Page 4 

the written judgment should be changed to conform to the actual sentence so that the 

BOP’s calculation of the release date matches the judge’s intention. 

III. Merits 

A. Analysis 

 The parties agree an unambiguous oral pronouncement of a sentence controls 

over a written judgment documenting the sentence. The oral pronouncement is the 

actual sentence because the Due Process and Confrontation Clauses require defendant’s 

presence at the imposition of sentence. United States v. Agostino, 132 F.3d 1183, 1200 (7th 

Cir. 1997). So if there is a discrepancy between the unambiguous oral pronouncement 

and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement trumps and the written judgment 

should be amended. United States v. Medina-Mora, 796 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015). But 

the parties disagree about whether the oral pronouncement was unambiguous. We 

review de novo. 

 Tancil argues the oral pronouncement was unambiguous. The judge stated he 

wanted the sentence to begin running on November 19, 2013, the date Tancil was writted 

into federal custody. The judge promised: “I will make sure the J and C reflects all of that 

so he gets full credit, okay.” 

 The problem is the written judgment simply recommends Tancil “be given credit 

for time served while in federal custody.” And the BOP did not credit Tancil for the time 

between the writ (November 19, 2013) and the sentencing hearing (March 28, 2019). 

 A federal term of imprisonment commences on the date defendant is received in 

custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to begin service of sentence at, 

the detention facility. 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a). A defendant “shall be given credit” for any 

time he spent in official detention as a result of the subject offense before sentence for 

that offense commenced if that prior detention was not credited against another 

sentence. Id. § 3585(b). 

 A district judge may order a sentence to run concurrently with any portion of a 

state sentence defendant has not yet served. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). But a district judge may 

not backdate a sentence. See United States v. Hill, 48 F.3d 228, 234 (7th Cir. 1995) (the 

responsibility for deciding when the sentence begins remains with the Attorney 

General). 

 Here, Tancil was in the early years of a 30-year state sentence when he was 

Case: 19-1621 Document: 34 Filed: 06/15/2020 Pages: 6
No. 19-1621 Page 5 

writted into federal custody on November 19, 2013. He was not sentenced for the federal 

crimes until March 28, 2019. The district judge stated his intention that Tancil receive 

credit for the time he served starting November 19, 2013, and specifically referenced this 

date. He promised to make that happen in the written judgment. But the way the written 

judgment was issued, that credit could not technically occur because Tancil already 

received credit for the period from November 19, 2013, to March 28, 2019, toward his 

pre-existing state sentence, as both parties noted on appeal. So what could the district 

judge have done to effectuate the orally pronounced sentence? He could have employed 

§ 5G1.3(d) of the Guidelines to effectively credit the period between the writ and 

sentencing by reducing the total imprisonment term by the amount of that period. Such 

a downward departure should only apply to extraordinary cases, and should be clearly 

identified in the written judgment as a § 5G1.3(d) downward departure. U.S.S.G. § 

5G1.3(d) & App. N. 4(E). 

B. Sentence 

 Here is the math. The federal sentence is 216 months (18 years) concurrent to the 

state sentence. 

 Tancil argues the judge unambiguously wanted to give credit for the time served 

starting November 19, 2013. He promised to make sure the written judgment made that 

happen. 

 If a sentence of 18 years could start on November 19, 2013, it would end on 

November 19, 2031, not considering credit for good conduct time. 

C. BOP’s calculation 

 Based on the actual sentence, including credit for the time served while subject to 

the writ, the projected release date calculated by the BOP should be March 22, 2029.1

 But the BOP’s calculation (based on the written judgment) does not reflect the full 

credit the judge intended: March 28, 2019 (date of sentencing) + 18 years – 972 days = July 

1 November 19, 2013 (date of writ) + 18 years – 972 days (for good conduct) = March 22, 2029. When 

calculating the projected release date, the BOP accounts for projected, possible credit for good conduct 

time. For every year Tancil is incarcerated, he may receive up to 54 days of credit for good conduct time. 18 

U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). So Tancil might receive up to 972 days of credit for good conduct time on an 18-year 

sentence. 18 years x 54 days per year = 972 days of good conduct time. We express no opinion about 

whether Tancil will ultimately receive any credit for good conduct time. 

Case: 19-1621 Document: 34 Filed: 06/15/2020 Pages: 6
No. 19-1621 Page 6 

30, 2034.2

 The bottom line is July 2034 (BOP release date) is over five years too late. 

D. Remedy 

 We agree with Tancil that the oral sentence was unambiguous. The transcript of 

the sentencing hearing makes clear that the judge wanted to give Tancil credit beginning 

November 19, 2013. He even mentioned that particular date. But the sentence cannot 

begin running on November 19, 2013, given the way the judgment is written and the 

rules the BOP must follow. 

 One potential way to bring the written judgment (and the resulting BOP 

calculation) into accord with the oral sentence might be for the written judgment to show 

a sentence of 141 months starting March 28, 2019,3 and to reference U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d). 

The government noted and delineated (and argued against) this possibility in its 

appellate response. Tancil accepted this solution in his reply as the “clearest 

mechanism.” 

IV. Conclusion 

 We vacate the written judgment and remand with instructions to issue a written 

judgment comporting with the orally imposed sentence. We leave the precise figures to 

the district judge to consider, keeping in mind the rules the BOP must follow. A second 

sentencing hearing is not necessary.

2 July 30, 2034, is a Sunday. The BOP listed Tancil’s release date as July 28, 2034, the preceding Friday. 

3 A sentence of 141 months starting March 28, 2019, roughly equals a sentence of 216 months starting 

November 19, 2013, given 85% good-time credit. The time between the sentencing hearing on March 28, 

2019, and a release date of March 22, 2029, is 3,647 days, which is approximately 85% of 4,291 days, which 

is approximately 141 months. 

Case: 19-1621 Document: 34 Filed: 06/15/2020 Pages: 6