FI L ED

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T

FEB RUARY 23, 2010

J OHN L EY

CL ERK [ P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o s

. 0 8

- 1 7 2 4 8 & 0 9

- 1 1 2 1 0

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 8 9

- 0 0 0 2 3

- C R

- 1

- W C O

- 1

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

,

v e r s u s

R O N A L D R E G I N A L D P H I L L I P S

,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l s f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f G e o r g i a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( F e b r u a r y 2 3

, 2 0 1 0 )

B e f o r e C A R N E S

, H U L L a n d A N D E R S O N

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

H U L L

, C i r c u i t J u d g e :

T h i s s e n t e n c i n g a p p e a l p r e s e n t s q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e i n t e r p l a y o f 1 8U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c )

, F e d e r a l R u l e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e 3 5 ( a )

, a n d m o t i o n s f o r

r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

. S p e c i f i c a l l y

, d o e s R u l e 3 5 ( a ) ’ s s e v e n

- d a y t i m e l i m i t f o r c o r r e c t i n g

e r r o r s i n s e n t e n c e s a p p l y t o a r e d u c e d s e n t e n c e s t e m m i n g f r o m a § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 )

p r o c e e d i n g ? W e f

i r s t r e c o u n t t h e e v e n t s l e a d i n g t o t h i s a p p e a l

.

I

. B A C K G R O U N D

A

. P h i l l i p s ’ s 1 9 8 9 O r i g i n a l S e n t e n c e

F o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n 1 9 8 9

, R o n a l d R e g i n a l d P h i l l i p s w a s c o n v i c t e d o f s i x

d r u g

- r e l a t e d o f

f e n s e s i n v o l v i n g m o r e t h a n 5 0 g r a m s o f c r a c k c o c a i n e a n d a

f i r e a r m s o f

f e n s e i n r e l a t i o n t o a d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g c r i m e

. A p p l y i n g t h e 1 9 8 8

s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s

, t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t ( “ P S R ” ) c o n c l u d e d t h a t P h i l l i p s w a s

a c c o u n t a b l e f

o r : 1

, 6 5 1

. 9 g r a m s o f c r a c k

, 1 9 8

. 3 g r a m s o f c o c a i n e p o w d e r

, a n d 4 2

g r a m s o f m a r i

j u a n a

. U s i n g t h e e q u i v a l e n c y a n d t h e d o u b l i n g r u l e s i n t h e 1 9 8 8

s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s

, t h e d r u g s w e r e t r e a t e d a s 3 3

, 0 7 7

. 7 g r a m s o f h e r o i n

. 1

P h i l l i p s ’ s b a s e o f

f e n s e l e v e l w a s 3 6

, w h i c h w a s t h e h i g h e s t b a s e l e v e l i n t h e

d r u g q u a n t i t y t a b l e o f t h e 1 9 8 8 g u i d e l i n e s

. U

. S

. S

. G

. § 2 D 1

. 1 ( 1 9 8 8 )

. A t h r e e

p o i n t e n h a n c e m e n t f

o r a l e a d e r s h i p r o l e a n d t w o m o r e p o i n t s f o r o b s t r u c t i o n

The doubling rules applied to the dr ug quantity

beca use Philli ps also was c onvicted of 1

maintaining a

place for the pur

pose of manuf

actur ing, distributing , and using coca ine within

1000 fee t of an e lementar y school and possessing with the intent to dist ribute more tha n 500

g rams of c ocaine within 1000 feet of a n elementa

ry school in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a) (1), 845a (a) , 856(a) (1) a nd 18 U.S.C. § 2.

2r e s u l t e d i n a t o t a l o f f e n s e l e v e l o f 4 1

. W i t h a c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y o f I I I

,

P h i l l i p s ’ s g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e w a s 3 6 0 m o n t h s t o l i f e

, w i t h a c o n s e c u t i v e t e r m o f 6 0

m o n t h s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t u n d e r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 9 2 4 ( c ) f o r p o s s e s s i n g a n d u s i n g f i r e a r m s

i n r e l a t i o n t o a d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g c r i m e

.

A t s e n t e n c i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a d o p t e d t h e P S R ’ s f i n d i n g s b u t r e d u c e d

P h i l l i p s ’ s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y t o I I

. T h a t r e d u c t i o n

, h o w e v e r

, h a d n o e f f e c t

o n t h e g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s e n t e n c e d P h i l l i p s t o c o n c u r r e n t t e r m s

o f 3 6 0 m o n t h s i m p r i s o n m e n t o n f i v e d r u g

- r e l a t e d c o u n t s a n d a c o n s e c u t i v e t e r m o f

6 0 m o n t h s o n t h e f

i r e a r m s c o u n t

. W e a f

f i r m e d P h i l l i p s ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e

.

S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. C l a v i s

, 9 5 6 F

. 2 d 1 0 7 9 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 2 )

, m o d i f i e d i n p a r t o n

r e h ’ g

, 9 7 7 F

. 2 d 5 3 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 2 )

.

I n 1 9 9 5 P h i l l i p s f

i l e d a m o t i o n t o v a c a t e h i s s e n t e n c e u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. §

2 2 5 5

, w h i c h w a s d e n i e d

. T h e n e x t y e a r h e f i l e d m u l t i p l e § 2 2 5 5 p e t i t i o n s

, a l l o f

w h i c h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d

. T h a t c o u r t a n d t h i s o n e d e n i e d h i s m o t i o n s f o r

c e r t i f i c a t e s o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y

.

B

. 2 0 0 8 N e w S e n t e n c e

T h i r t e e n y e a r s l a t e r i n 2 0 0 8

, P h i l l i p s f i l e d a p r o s e m o t i o n t o r e d u c e h i s

s e n t e n c e u n d e r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) b a s e d o n A m e n d m e n t 7 1 5 t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g

3g u i d e l i n e s

. A m e n d m e n t 7 1 5 p r o v i d e d f o r a t w o

- l e v e l r e d u c t i o n i n t h e b a s e 2

o f f e n s e l e v e l s f

o r m o s t o f

f e n s e s i n v o l v i n g c o c a i n e b a s e a n d a t l e a s t o n e o t h e r

c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e

. S e e U

. S

. S

. G

. A p p

. C

, A m e n d

. 7 1 5 ( S u p p

. M a y 2 0 0 8 ) ;

U

. S

. S

. G

. § 2 D 1

. 1 c m t

. n

. 1 0 ( D ) ( i )

. A m e n d m e n t 7 1 5 b e c a m e e f f e c t i v e o n M a y 1

,

2 0 0 8 a n d w a s m a d e r e t r o a c t i v e b y A m e n d m e n t 7 1 6

. S e e U

. S

. S

. G

. § 1 B 1

. 1 0 ( c )

.

T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i r e c t e d t h e g o v e r n m e n t t o r e s p o n d t o P h i l l i p s ’ s

§ 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n a n d a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r h i m

. O n S e p t e m b e r 2 4

, 2 0 0 8

, t h e

c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g a n d h e a r d a r g u m e n t s f r o m c o u n s e l f

o r t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a n d P h i l l i p s r e g a r d i n g t h e § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n

. T h e c o u r t a l s o

a l l o w e d P h i l l i p s i n d i v i d u a l l y t o a l l o c u t e

. T h e c o u r t d i d n o t r u l e a t t h e h e a r i n g

.

R a t h e r

, o n D e c e m b e r 5

, 2 0 0 8

, t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d a w r i t t e n o r d e r g r a n t i n g

P h i l l i p s ’ s § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n

. I n i t s o r d e r

, t h e c o u r t r e d u c e d P h i l l i p s ’ s d r u g

r e l a t e d s e n t e n c e t o 3 2 4 m o n t h s

. T h e c o u r t a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s d i s p u t e d 3

Phill ips previously

had filed a

§ 3582(c) (2) motion based solely on Amendment 706, 2

which lower ed ce rtain base offe nse leve ls under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c ) for cra ck coc aine of

fense s.

See United States v. Moore , 541 F.3d 1323, 1325, 1327 ( 11th Cir. 2008). Amendment 706 wa s

applied re troac tively

beg inning on Ma

rch 3, 2008 a s a re sult of Amendment 713.

The district cour

t denied Phillips ’s motion because Amendment 706 did not eff ectively

reduc e the ba se off

ense le vel for c erta in offense s involving two or more differ ent ty pes of

controlled substanc es. Phill ips filed the § 3582(c )(2) motion at issue in thi s case afte r

Amendment 715 bec ame e ffe ctive.

At the hea

ring , the district court did not believe that it had jurisdiction to rule on the 3

§ 3582(c) (2) motion, beca use Philli ps’s appe al from the district c ourt’s denia l of his first

§ 3582(c) (2) motion under A mendment 706 was still pending at the time of the he aring . This

Court gr anted Phillips’s mot ion to dism iss that appeal on Nove mber 10, 2008.

4w h e t h e r t h e 2 0 0 8 o r t h e 1 9 8 8 v e r s i o n o f t h e g u i d e l i n e s s h o u l d b e u s e d t o c a l c u l a t e

P h i l l i p s ’ s n e w b a s e o f

f e n s e l e v e l u n d e r A m e n d m e n t 7 1 5

. A p p l y i n g A m e n d m e n t

7 1 5 t o t h e 1 9 8 8 g u i d e l i n e s l o w e r e d P h i l l i p s ’ s b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l f

r o m 3 6 t o 3 4

,

r e s u l t i n g i n a t o t a l o f

f e n s e l e v e l o f 3 9 a n d a n e w g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e o f 3 2 4 t o 4 0 5

m o n t h s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t

. U n d e r t h e 2 0 0 8 v e r s i o n o f t h e g u i d e l i n e s

, h o w e v e r

, t h e

a p p l i c a b l e c a l c u l a t i o n g a v e P h i l l i p s a b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l o f 3 8

, w h i c h

, u n d e r

A m e n d m e n t 7 1 5

, w o u l d b e r e d u c e d t o a b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l o f 3 6

. T h u s

, a p p l y i n g 4

t h e 2 0 0 8 v e r s i o n w o u l d r e s u l t i n t h e s a m e b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l o f 3 6 t h a t P h i l l i p s

o r i g i n a l l y r e c e i v e d u n d e r t h e 1 9 8 8 g u i d e l i n e s a n d w o u l d n o t a l t e r P h i l l i p s ’ s

o r i g i n a l g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e o f 3 6 0 m o n t h s t o l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t

.

I n i t s o r d e r

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t i t s h o u l d u s e t h e 1 9 8 8 v e r s i o n

o f t h e g u i d e l i n e s t o d e t e r m i n e P h i l l i p s ’ s n e w b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l u n d e r A m e n d m e n t

7 1 5

. T h e c o u r t r e d u c e d P h i l l i p s ’ s i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e t o 3 2 4 m o n t h s o n t h e

d r u g

- r e l a t e d o f

f e n s e s w i t h a c o n s e c u t i v e 6 0

- m o n t h t e r m o n t h e f i r e a r m s c r i m e

,

r e a s o n i n g i n i t s o r d e r :

A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g d e f

e n d a n t ’ s f

i l e

, t h e f a c t o r s s e t f

o r t h i n § 3 5 5 3 ( a )

,

a n d t h e p r o v i s i o n s a n d c o m m e n t a r y o f U

. S

. S

. G

. § 1 B 1

. 1 0

, t h e c o u r t

a g r e e s w i t h d e f

e n d a n t t h a t h e s h o u l d r e c e i v e a r e d u c e d s e n t e n c e

. U n d e r t h e 1 9 8 8 [ s ] e n t e n c i n g [ g ] u i d e l i n e s

, a p p l i c a t i o n o f A m e n d m e n t

7 0 6 a n d 7 1 5 t o t h i s c a s e y i e l d s a b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l o f 3 4

, a t o t a l

This discrepa

ncy is due to an interve ning c hang e in the sente ncing g uidelines betwe en 4

the time when Phillips was sentence d and the time of the district court’s orde r.

5o f

f e n s e l e v e l o f 3 9

, a c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y o f I I

, a n d a g u i d e l i n e

r a n g e o f 3 2 4 t o 4 0 5 m o n t h s i m p r i s o n m e n t

. D e f e n d a n t ’ s o r i g i n a l

s e n t e n c e f

e l l a t t h e b o t t o m o f t h e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e

, a n d t h e c o u r t

b e l i e v e s t h a t h i s a m e n d e d s e n t e n c e s h o u l d f o l l o w s u i t

. T h e r e f

o r e

, i n

i t s d i s c r e t i o n

, t h e c o u r t w i l l r e d u c e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s e n t e n c e t o 3 2 4

m o n t h s

, w i t h a c o n s e c u t i v e t e r m o f 6 0 m o n t h s

.

( E m p h a s i s a d d e d )

.

I n i t s o r d e r

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o e x p r e s s l y c h a n g e d P h i l l i p s ’ s s e n t e n c e t o

3 2 4 m o n t h s a s f

o l l o w s : “ T h e J u d g m e n t a n d C o m m i t m e n t d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 1

,

1 9 8 9

, i s h e r e b y A M E N D E D

. . . t o c h a n g e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s e n t e n c e f

r o m 3 6 0 t o 3 2 4

m o n t h s i m p r i s o n m e n t

. A l l o t h e r t e r m s o f t h e J u d g m e n t a n d C o m m i t m e n t w i l l

r e m a i n u n c h a n g e d

. ” A s a r e s u l t o f t h e D e c e m b e r 5 o r d e r

, P h i l l i p s i n f a c t h a d a

n e w s e n t e n c e o f 3 2 4 m o n t h s i m p r i s o n m e n t

, f o l l o w e d b y 6 0 m o n t h s i m p r i s o n m e n t

f o r t h e § 9 2 4 ( c ) f

i r e a r m s o f

f e n s e

.

C

. G o v e r n m e n t ’ s M o t i o n f o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

O n D e c e m b e r 1 9

, 2 0 0 8

, t e n b u s i n e s s d a y s a f t e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r

, t h e

g o v e r n m e n t f

i l e d a “ M o t i o n f

o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e C o u r t ’ s O r d e r t o R e d u c e

D e f e n d a n t ’ s S e n t e n c e P u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 )

. ” T h e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s

m o t i o n s o u g h t t o h a v e P h i l l i p s ’ s 1 9 8 9 s e n t e n c e o f 3 6 0 m o n t h s r e i n s t a t e d b a s e d o n

U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. J a m e s

, 5 4 8 F

. 3 d 9 8 3 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 8 )

. I n J a m e s

, t h i s C o u r t 5

The James decision was issued on N ovember 12, 2008, seven w eeks a fter the district 5

court c onducted the Septe mber 24 he aring on Phill ips’s § 3582(c) (2) motion, but about three

wee ks befor e the c ourt g rante d Phill ips’s § 3582(c) (2) motion and ac tually reduc ed his sentenc e.

6c o n c l u d e d t h a t

, i n e v a l u a t i n g w h e t h e r t h e c r a c k

- c o c a i n e A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 r e d u c e d a

d e f e n d a n t ’ s b a s e o f

f e n s e l e v e l

, w e l o o k n o t t o t h e b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l f

o r J a m e s ’ s

o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e i n 1 9 8 9 b u t t o t h e b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l f

o r t h e s a m e a m o u n t o f

d r u g s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e § 3 5 8 2 m o t i o n

. A n d i n P h i l l i p s ’ s c a s e

, t h e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s 6

m o t i o n a r g u e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n a p p l y i n g t h e 1 9 8 8 g u i d e l i n e s b e c a u s e

u n d e r J a m e s t h e c u r r e n t g u i d e l i n e s a p p l y

, A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 d i d n o t l o w e r P h i l l i p s ’ s

b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l u n d e r t h e 2 0 0 8 g u i d e l i n e s

, a n d t h u s t h e c o u r t l a c k e d a u t h o r i t y

u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) t o m o d i f y P h i l l i p s ’ s 1 9 8 9 s e n t e n c e

.

D

. D i s t r i c t C o u r t G r a n t s G o v e r n m e n t ’ s M o t i o n

O n J a n u a r y 2 6

, 2 0 0 9

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e

g o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n f

o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t n o t e d t h a t L o c a l R u l e

o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 7

. 2 ( E ) f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f G e o r g i a p r o v i d e s t h a t

“ m o t i o n s f

o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n ” c a n b e f i l e d w i t h i n t e n d a y s a f

t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e

o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t i t “ h a s d i s c r e t i o n t o d e c i d e 7

I n J ames, the de fenda

nt orig inally

was he ld responsible for

a drug amount y

ielding a 6

base of fense level of 36 unde r the 1989 ve rsion of the sente ncing g uidelines. See 548 F .3d at

986. At the time of his § 3582(c) (2) motion in 2008, J ames’s ba se off ense le vel would be 38 f

or

the same a

mount of drug s. This Court determined that the two- level re duction in Amendment

706 did not lower James’ base of fense level and g uidelines rang e under the 2008 g uidelines, and

thus J ames wa s not entitled to resentenc ing unde r § 3582(c )(2) . I d.

L ocal Criminal Rule 1.1(C) provide s that “[c]i vil local rules shall apply [i n criminal 7

proce eding s] i nsofar

as they do not conflict with any

statute, fede ral rule , local cr iminal rule, or

7w h e n t o a m e n d i t s p r i o r o r d e r s

, ” t h a t “ J a m e s i s c o n t r o l l i n g i n t h i s c a s e

, ” a n d t h a t

“ t h e c o u r t m u s t c a l c u l a t e [ P h i l l i p s ’ s ] b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l a c c o r d i n g t o t h e

[ s ] e n t e n c i n g [ g ] u i d e l i n e s c u r r e n t l y i n e f f e c t

, r a t h e r t h a n a c c o r d i n g t o t h o s e i n e f f e c t

a t t h e t i m e o f h i s 1 9 8 9 c o n v i c t i o n

. ” B e c a u s e P h i l l i p s ’ s b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l u n d e r t h e

2 0 0 8 g u i d e l i n e s w a s 3 8

, a t w o

- s t e p r e d u c t i o n u n d e r A m e n d m e n t 7 1 5 y i e l d e d a

b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l o f 3 6

, t h e s a m e b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l h e r e c e i v e d i n 1 9 8 9

. G i v e n

J a m e s a n d t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n f o r

r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

.

I n i t s J a n u a r y 2 6 o r d e r

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t w a s “ s e t t i n g a s i d e

. . .

t h e D e c e m b e r 5

, 2 0 0 8 o r d e r o f t h i s c o u r t g r a n t i n g [ P h i l l i p s ’ s ] § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n

f o r r e d u c t i o n o f s e n t e n c e

. ” T h e c o u r t f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t “ D e f

e n d a n t ’ s o r i g i n a l

s e n t e n c e o f 3 6 0 m o n t h s i m p r i s o n m e n t

, w i t h a c o n s e c u t i v e t e r m o f 6 0 m o n t h s

,

t h e r e f o r e r e m a i n s i n p l a c e a s i m p o s e d a t h i s 1 9 8 9 s e n t e n c i n g

. A l l o t h e r t e r m s o f

t h e J u d g m e n t a n d C o m m i t m e n t w i l l r e m a i n u n c h a n g e d

. ” 8

P h i l l i p s t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t h i s J a n u a r y 2 6

, 2 0 0 9 o r d e r

.

I I

. D I S C U S S I O N

individual order.” L CrR 1.1(C), NDGa

.

Phill ips also filed a motion for re consideration, asking the district court to furthe r re duce 8

his sentence below the ne wly calc ulated g uidelines rang e of 324 to 405 months. The district

court de nied Philli ps’s motion in t he same order , and Phillips has not raise d that issue in this

appea l.

8T h e p a r t i e s h e r e d o n o t d i s p u t e w h a t J a m e s h o l d s o r t h a t u n d e r J a m e s t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h o u l d h a v e a p p l i e d t h e 2 0 0 8 g u i d e l i n e s i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e o f

P h i l l i p s ’ s § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n

. N o p a r t y d i s p u t e s t h a t t h e r e w a s a c l e a r e r r o r i n t h e

n e w s e n t e n c e o f 3 2 4 m o n t h s w h i c h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i m p o s e d o n D e c e m b e r 5

, 2 0 0 8

i n i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g P h i l l i p s ’ s § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n

. R a t h e r

, t h e i s s u e h e r e

c o n c e r n s w h e t h e r t h e c o u r t h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o n J a n u a r y 2 6

, 2 0 0 9 t o m o d i f y t h e 3 2 4

-

m o n t h i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d o n D e c e m b e r 5

, 2 0 0 8 b y v a c a t i n g i t s

D e c e m b e r 5

, 2 0 0 8 o r d e r

.

P h i l l i p s a r g u e s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o m o d i f y o r v a c a t e h i s

3 2 4

- m o n t h i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e a n d r e i n s t a t e h i s o r i g i n a l 3 6 0

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e

b e c a u s e : ( 1 ) § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) p r o v i d e s a d i s t r i c t c o u r t m a y n o t m o d i f y a n

i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e e x c e p t w h e r e e x p r e s s l y p e r m i t t e d b y s t a t u t e o r R u l e 3 5 o f

t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e ; ( 2 ) t h e r e i s n o o t h e r s t a t u t e p e r m i t t i n g t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o m o d i f

y h i s 3 2 4

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e a n d t h u s t h i s m o d i f i c a t i o n c o u l d

o n l y b e d o n e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 5 ; ( 3 ) R u l e 3 5 ( a ) h a s a s e v e n

- d a y j u r i s d i c t i o n a l

t i m e l i m i t ; a n d ( 4 ) t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t a c t ( t o v a c a t e t h e 3 2 4

- m o n t h a n d

r e i n s t a t e t h e 3 6 0

- m o n t h i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e ) w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s a n d t h u s l a c k e d

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d o s o

.

I n r e s p o n s e

, t h e g o v e r n m e n t a r g u e s t h a t i t s m o t i o n w a s a m o t i o n t o

9r e c o n s i d e r

, n o t a m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e 3 5 ( a )

, a n d t h a t i t w a s t i m e l y f i l e d w i t h i n t h e

1 0

- d a y t i m e p e r i o d a l l o t t e d i n L o c a l R u l e 7

. 2 ( E ) f o r f i l i n g s u c h m o t i o n s

. T h e

g o v e r n m e n t c o n t e n d s t h a t a § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) p r o c e e d i n g i s n o t a “ s e n t e n c i n g ” s u b j e c t

t o R u l e 3 5 ( a ) a t a l l a n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e t a i n e d a u t h o r i t y t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s

r u l i n g o n P h i l l i p s ’ s § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n

. 9

T o a n a l y z e t h e s e a r g u m e n t s

, w e f i r s t e x a m i n e t h e l a n g u a g e i n § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) a n d

R u l e 3 5 a n d h o w t h e s t a t u t e a n d t h e r u l e n a r r o w l y l i m i t a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s a u t h o r i t y

t o m o d i f y a n i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e a f t e r i t h a s b e e n i m p o s e d

.

A

. R e s t r i c t i o n s i n § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) a n d R u l e 3 5 ( a )

T h e a u t h o r i t y o f a d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o m o d i f y a n i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e i s

n a r r o w l y l i m i t e d b y s t a t u t e

. S p e c i f i c a l l y

, § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) p r o v i d e s t h a t a c o u r t m a y n o t

m o d i f y a n i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e e x c e p t i n t h e s e t h r e e c i r c u m s t a n c e s : ( 1 ) w h e r e

t h e B u r e a u o f P r i s o n s h a s f i l e d a m o t i o n a n d e i t h e r e x t r a o r d i n a r y a n d c o m p e l l i n g

r e a s o n s w a r r a n t a r e d u c t i o n o r t h e d e f e n d a n t i s a t l e a s t 7 0 y e a r s o l d a n d m e e t s

c e r t a i n o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s

, s e e 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ; ( 2 ) w h e r e a n o t h e r

“We re view de novo que stions concer ning the jurisdiction of the district court.” U nited 9

States v. Oliver, 148 F .3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir. 1998). Whether the district c ourt had the

authority to modify

and vac ate Phillips’s 324-month sentence on January 26, 2009 is a question

of law subjec t to de novo revie w. See United States v. Moor e, 541 F .3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir.

2008) (“ I n a § 3582(c )(2) proce eding , we r eview de novo the district court’s le g al conc lusions

reg arding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines. We revie w de novo

questions of statutory

interpre tation.”) (inter

nal quotation marks and c itation omit ted), c ert.

denied, 129 S. Ct. 1601 (2009).

10s t a t u t e o r F e d e r a l R u l e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e 3 5 e x p r e s s l y p e r m i t s a s e n t e n c e

m o d i f i c a t i o n

, s e e i d

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ; o r ( 3 ) w h e r e a d e f e n d a n t h a s b e e n s e n t e n c e d

t o a t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t b a s e d o n a s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e t h a t w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y

l o w e r e d b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n a n d c e r t a i n o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e m e t

, s e e i d

.

§ 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 )

. O n l y § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) i s r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e d i s t r i c t

1 0

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) provide s in full: 1 0

c) Modification of an imposed term of imprisonment.--The court may not modify a

term of imprisonment once it has been imposed e x cept that-

- (1) in any case -- (A) the court, upon motion of the Direc tor of the Bur eau of Prisons,

may re duce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of

probation or supervised rele ase with or without conditions tha t doe s

not exceed the unserve d portion of the orig inal t er m of

impr i s o nment), afte r considering the fac tors set forth in section

3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable , if it finds that--

(i) extraordin ar y and compelling rea sons war rant such a

reduc tion; or

(ii) the defe ndant is at l ea s t 70 y ear s of ag e, has serve d at

least 30 y ear s in prison, pursuant to a sentenc e imposed under

section 3559(c)

, for the offe nse or offe n s es for which the

defe ndant is curr ently imprisoned, and a deter mination has

b ee n made by the Direc tor of the Bur eau of Prisons that t h e

defe ndant is not a dang er to the safe ty of any other person or

the community , as provided unde r sec tion 3142(g );

and that such a re duction is consistent with applicable policy

statements issued by

the Sentencing Commi ssion; and

(B ) the court may modify an impos ed term of imprisonment to the

extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by

Rule 35 of the

Fe dera l Rules of Criminal P roce dure; a nd

(2) in the case of a defe ndant who has been sentenced t o a term of

imprisonment based on a sentenc ing rang e th at h as subsequently been

lowere d by the Sentencing Commi ssion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), upon

motion of the defe ndant or the Direc tor of the Bur eau o f Prisons, or on its

own motion, the court may re d u ce the term of imprisonment, afte r

considering the fac tors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are

applicable

, if such a reduc tion is consistent with applicable policy statements

issued by the Sentencing Commi ssion.

11c o u r t c o u l d m o d i f y t h e 3 2 4

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d o n D e c e m b e r 5

, 2 0 0 8 b a s e d

o n t h e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

. S e c t i o n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) p r o v i d e s :

T h e c o u r t m a y n o t m o d i f y a t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t o n c e i t h a s b e e n

i m p o s e d e x c e p t t h a t

–

( 1 ) i n a n y c a s e

–

. . .

( B ) t h e c o u r t m a y m o d i f y a n i m p o s e d t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t t o

t h e e x t e n t o t h e r w i s e e x p r e s s l y p e r m i t t e d b y s t a t u t e o r b y R u l e

3 5 o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e

. . . .

1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B )

. T h e u n a m b i g u o u s l a n g u a g e o f § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B )

i n d i c a t e s t h a t

, a b s e n t o t h e r e x p r e s s s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y

, m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a n

i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e c a n o n l y b e d o n e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 5

. N o p a r t y c l a i m s a n y

o t h e r s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y i s a p p l i c a b l e h e r e

. T h u s

, w e f o c u s o n R u l e 3 5

.

F e d e r a l R u l e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e 3 5 s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e s t r i c t s h o w a n d w h e n

a d i s t r i c t c o u r t m a y m o d i f y a n i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e

. R u l e 3 5 ( a ) p r o v i d e s t h a t

“ [ w ] i t h i n 7 d a y s a f

t e r s e n t e n c i n g

, t h e c o u r t m a y c o r r e c t a s e n t e n c e t h a t r e s u l t e d

f r o m a r i t h m e t i c a l

, t e c h n i c a l

, o r o t h e r c l e a r e r r o r

. ” F e d

. R

. C r i m

. P

. 3 5 ( a )

. T h u s

, 1 1

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).

The ve rsion of F eder al Rule of Criminal Procedur e 35 in ef fec t when the district cour t 1 1

ruled on the g overnme nt’s motion to reconsider pr ovided that a c ourt may corr ect a sentenc e

“[w]i thin 7 day s after

sentenc ing.” Fe d. R. Crim. P . 35(a) (2007). I n 2009 the rule w as ame nded

to provide for

a 14-da y time limi t. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) ( 2009). B eca use the a mendment

12u n d e r R u l e 3 5 ( a )

, a c o u r t c a n c o r r e c t a s e n t e n c e o n l y f o r “ a r i t h m e t i c a l

, t e c h n i c a l

, o r

o t h e r c l e a r e r r o r ” a n d m u s t d o s o w i t h i n 7 d a y s

. F e d

. R

. C r i m

. P

. 3 5 ( a )

. 1 2

A c c o r d i n g l y

, a f

t e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i m p o s e d t h e 3 2 4

- m o n t h i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e

i n i t s D e c e m b e r 5

, 2 0 0 8 o r d e r

, t h e c o u r t h a d o n l y a n a r r o w w i n d o w o f t i m e u n d e r

R u l e 3 5 ( a ) i n w h i c h t o m o d i f y t h a t s e n t e n c e

. S e e F e d

. R

. C r i m

. P

. 3 5 ( a )

, a d v i s o r y

c o m m i t t e e ’ s n o t e ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( “ T h e a u t h o r i t y t o c o r r e c t a s e n t e n c e u n d e r t h i s

s u b d i v i s i o n i s i n t e n d e d t o b e v e r y n a r r o w a n d t o e x t e n d o n l y t o t h o s e c a s e s i n

w h i c h a n o b v i o u s e r r o r o r m i s t a k e h a s o c c u r r e d i n t h e s e n t e n c e

, t h a t i s

, e r r o r s

w h i c h w o u l d a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y r e s u l t i n a r e m a n d o f t h e c a s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r

f u r t h e r a c t i o n u n d e r R u l e 3 5 ( a )

. ” )

.

T h e w r i t e r s o f R u l e 3 5 ( a ) l i m i t e d b o t h i t s s c o p e a n d i t s d e a d l i n e t o p r o m o t e

t h e f i n a l i t y o f s e n t e n c e s a n d e n a b l e t h e p a r t i e s t o a p p e a l a s e n t e n c e p r o m p t l y

. T h e

A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e n o t e s t a t e s t h a t t h e C o m m i t t e e “ b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e t i m e f o r

c o r r e c t i n g s u c h e r r o r s s h o u l d b e n a r r o w e d w i t h i n t h e t i m e f o r a p p e a l i n g t h e

s e n t e n c e t o r e d u c e t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f j u r i s d i c t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s i n t h e e v e n t o f a n

beca me ef fec tive Dec ember

1, 2009, see id., it does not apply to this case.

Rule 35(b) a llows a court to re duce a sentenc e upon the g overnme nt’s motion if the 1 2

defe ndant provided the g overnme nt substantial assistance a fter sentenc ing in investig ating or

prosec uting a

nother pe rson. The g overnme nt filed no such motion in this case , and Rule 35(b) is

not applicable. Additionally , Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 allows a c ourt at any time,

afte r g iving notice , to corre ct a “ cler ical er ror in a judg ment, order , or other pa rt of the r ecor d.”

Fe d. R. Crim. P . 36. Neither party has ar g ued that the district cour t’s J anuar y 26, 2009 order

constituted the corr ection of a “cle rica l error ,” and Rule 36 is not at issue in this appea l.

13a p p e a l a n d t o p r o v i d e t h e p a r t i e s w i t h a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o a d d r e s s t h e c o u r t ’ s

c o r r e c t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c e

, o r l a c k t h e r e o f

, i n a n y a p p e a l o f t h e s e n t e n c e

. [ ] A 1 3

s h o r t e r p e r i o d o f t i m e w o u l d a l s o r e d u c e t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f a b u s e o f t h e r u l e b y

l i m i t i n g i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o a c k n o w l e d g e d a n d o b v i o u s e r r o r s i n s e n t e n c i n g

. ” F e d

.

R

. C r i m

. P

. 3 5 a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e ’ s n o t e ( 1 9 9 1 )

. A s t h e R u l e 3 5 a d v i s o r y

c o m m i t t e e n o t e m a k e s c l e a r

, t h e r u l e “ i s n o t i n t e n d e d t o a f f o r d t h e c o u r t t h e

o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g

g u i d e l i n e s o r

. . . s i m p l y t o c h a n g e i t s m i n d a b o u t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e

s e n t e n c e

. . . [ o r ] t o r e o p e n i s s u e s p r e v i o u s l y r e s o l v e d a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g

t h r o u g h t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e c o u r t ’ s d i s c r e t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e

s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s

. ” F e d

. R

. C r i m

. P

. 3 5 a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e ’ s n o t e ( 1 9 9 1 )

.

I m p o r t a n t l y f

o r t h i s c a s e

, t h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t t h e s e v e n

- d a y t i m e l i m i t i n

R u l e 3 5 ( a ) i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l

, a n d t h a t “ [ o ] u t s i d e o f R u l e 3 5 ( c ) [ ] t h e r e e x i s t s n o 1 4

‘ i n h e r e n t a u t h o r i t y ’ f

o r a d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o m o d i f y a s e n t e n c e

. ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v

.

D i a z

- C l a r k

, 2 9 2 F

. 3 d 1 3 1 0

, 1 3 1 9 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 2 ) ; s e e a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v

.

At the time of the district cour t’s order , the time period in which a defe ndant could file 1 3

a notice of

appea l from a se ntence was ten da y s. Fe d. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)( A)(2005) . As of

Dec ember

1, 2009, Rule 4(b)(1) (A) ha s been a mended to allow 14 da

y s for a defe ndant to appea l

a judg ment or orde r in a c riminal case . Fe d. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)( A)(2009)

.

“F ormer Rule 35( c), w hich addr essed the a uthority of the c ourt to corr ect c erta in error s 1 4

in the sentenc e, is now loca ted in Rule 35(a) .” F ed. R. Crim. P. 35 advisory committee’s note

(2002).

14M o r r i s o n

, 2 0 4 F

. 3 d 1 0 9 1

, 1 0 9 3 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( n o t i n g t h e s e v e n

- d a y l i m i t a t i o n

c o n t a i n e d i n t h e n R u l e 3 5 ( c ) “ i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l ” )

. I n D i a z

- C l a r k

, w e w e r e

“ p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r a d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n

,

a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e t i m e p r o v i d e d b y R u l e 3 5 o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f

C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e a n d w i t h o u t a n y f e d e r a l h a b e a s c o r p u s p e t i t i o n b e f o r e i t

, t o

r e d u c e a p r i s o n e r ’ s s e n t e n c e b a s e d u p o n i t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e i t h a d

o r i g i n a l l y i m p o s e d w a s e r r o n e o u s d u e t o a g r o u p i n g e r r o r u n d e r t h e [ s ] e n t e n c i n g

[ g ] u i d e l i n e s

. ” 2 9 2 F

. 3 d a t 1 3 1 1

. T h e D i a z

- C l a r k c o u r t n o t e d t h a t ( 1 ) t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t “ d i d n o t a c t w i t h i n R u l e 3 5 ( c ) ’ s s e v e n

- d a y t i m e p e r i o d i n m o d i f y i n g

D i a z

- C l a r k ’ s s e n t e n c e

, ” ( 2 ) “ a c o u r t ’ s m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a s e n t e n c e o u t s i d e o f t h i s

s e v e n

- d a y p e r i o d i s a n a c t i o n t a k e n w i t h o u t t h e r e q u i s i t e j u r i s d i c t i o n

, a n d i s a l e g a l

n u l l i t y

, ” a n d ( 3 ) t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s “ d e c i s i o n c a n o n l y b e u p h e l d i f i t h a d s o m e

‘ i n h e r e n t a u t h o r i t y ’ t o m o d i f y t h e s e n t e n c e

. ” I d

. a t 1 3 1 7

. T h i s C o u r t f u r t h e r

s t r e s s e d t h a t w h a t e v e r t h e s c o p e o f a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s i n h e r e n t p o w e r

, “ ‘ i t d o e s n o t

i n c l u d e t h e p o w e r t o d e v e l o p r u l e s t h a t c i r c u m v e n t o r c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e F e d e r a l

R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e

. ’ ” I d

. a t 1 3 1 8 ( q u o t i n g C a r l i s l e v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

, 5 1 7

U

. S

. 4 1 6

, 4 2 6

, 1 1 6 S

. C t

. 1 4 6 0

, 1 4 6 6 ( 1 9 9 6 ) )

. “ ‘ [ F ] e d e r a l c o u r t s h a v e n o m o r e

d i s c r e t i o n t o d i s r e g a r d t h e R u l e ’ s m a n d a t e t h a n t h e y d o t o d i s r e g a r d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

o r s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s

. ’ ” I d

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, i n D i a z

- C l a r k w e e n f o r c e d t h e s e v e n

15d a y l i m i t i n R u l e 3 5 a n d h e l d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o “ m o d i f y t h e

o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e

. ” I d

. a t 1 3 1 1

. 1 5

B a s e d o n D i a z

- C l a r k a n d § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B )

, a n d a b s e n t o t h e r s t a t u t o r y

a u t h o r i t y

, w e k n o w t h a t a d i s t r i c t c o u r t l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o m o d i f y a d e f e n d a n t ’ s

o r i g i n a l i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e e x c e p t w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s a s p r o v i d e d b y R u l e

3 5 ( a )

. A n d w h e t h e r t h e g o v e r n m e n t m o v e s f o r c o r r e c t i o n o f a n e r r o r o r t h e c o u r t

a c t s s u a s p o n t e

, t h e c o u r t m u s t a c t w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s a f t e r t h e s e n t e n c i n g

. W h i l e 1 6

D i a z

- C l a r k i s h e l p f

u l

, i t d o e s n o t s q u a r e l y a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n h e r e b e c a u s e D i a z

C l a r k i n v o l v e d a n o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e a n d n o t a l a t e r

, d i f f e r e n t s e n t e n c e s t e m m i n g

f r o m a § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) p r o c e e d i n g

.

B

. R u l e 3 5 ( a ) a n d § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) s e n t e n c e s

.

W i t h t h i s b a c k g r o u n d

, t h e p i v o t a l i s s u e h e r e i s w h e t h e r R u l e 3 5 ( a ) a l s o

a p p l i e s t o i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e s

, l i k e P h i l l i p s ’ s

, i m p o s e d i n a § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 )

See also F ed. R. Crim. P. 45(b)(2) (“ The c ourt may not ext end the time to take a ny 1 5

action under

Rule 35, except as stated in that rule.” ); United States v. Hig g s, 504 F.3d 456, 458-

59, 464 (3d Cir. 2007) (c oncluding that district court wa s without jurisdi ction to deny a Rule

35(a) motion for reduc tion of sentence outside the seven- day time limi t, even whe re c ounsel

filed the Rule 35(a ) motion within seven day s of the sente ncing hear ing) ; United States v. Shank,

395 F.3d 466, 470 ( 4th Cir. 2005) (conc luding that, a lthough de fenda nt filed a Rule 35 motion

within seven day s of sentenc ing, the district court lac ked jurisdiction to deny motion five months

afte r the sente ncing ).

See F ed. R. Crim. P. 35 advisory committee’s note ( 1991) (stating that Rule 35 “does 1 6

not provide for

any formalized method of bring ing the err or to the attention of the c ourt and

rec og nizes that the court could sua sponte make the c orre ction.”). A g ain, neither Diaz-Clark nor

this case involves a

Rule 35(b) or Rule 36 motion. See supra note 12.

16p r o c e e d i n g

. T h e g o v e r n m e n t a r g u e s t h a t R u l e 3 5 d o e s n o t a p p l y a t a l l b e c a u s e ( 1 )

R u l e 3 5 ( a ) s a y s “ [ w ] i t h i n 7 d a y s a f t e r s e n t e n c i n g

, t h e c o u r t m a y c o r r e c t a s e n t e n c e

t h a t r e s u l t e d f

r o m a r i t h m e t i c a l

, t e c h n i c a l

, o r o t h e r c l e a r e r r o r ” ; a n d ( 2 ) a

§ 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) p r o c e e d i n g i s n o t e q u i v a l e n t t o a “ s e n t e n c i n g

. ” D e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t i t

w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n p e r m i t t e d a f t e r P h i l l i p s ’ s o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e

, t h e g o v e r n m e n t

a r g u e s t h a t a m o t i o n f

o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s h o u l d b e a l l o w e d i n § 3 5 8 2 s e n t e n c i n g

p r o c e e d i n g s a n d s h o u l d p e r m i t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o v a c a t e t h e n e w § 3 5 8 2 s e n t e n c e

a n d r e i n s t a t e t h e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e a t a n y t i m e a s l o n g a s t h e l o c a l c o u r t r u l e s a l l o w

f o r m o t i o n s f

o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d a s l o n g a s t h e g o v e r n m e n t f i l e s i t s m o t i o n f

o r

r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i t h i n t e n d a y s

. W e d i s a g r e e

. 1 7

W h i l e a § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) p r o c e e d i n g i s n o t a p l e n a r y o r d e n o v o s e n t e n c i n g

, i t i s

s t i l l a s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e e d i n g

. S e e U

. S

. S

. G

. § 1 B 1

. 1 0 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( “ [ P ] r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r

1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) a n d t h i s p o l i c y s t a t e m e n t d o n o t c o n s t i t u t e a f u l l

r e s e n t e n c i n g o f t h e d e f

e n d a n t ” )

. W e r e c o g n i z e t h a t i n a § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m a t t e r

, “ [ a ] l l

o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c i n g d e t e r m i n a t i o n s r e m a i n u n c h a n g e d w i t h t h e s o l e e x c e p t i o n o f

t h e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e t h a t h a s b e e n a m e n d e d s i n c e t h e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c i n g

. ” U n i t e d

One f atal fla w in the g overnme nt’s arg ument is that if Rule 35 does not apply at all to 1 7

the 324-month sentenc e stemming from the § 3582( c)( 2) proc eeding , then the g overnme nt is

stuck with the unambig uous lang uag e of § 3582( c)( 1)(B ) that prohibits a district court f rom

modify ing a

n imprisonment sentence except wher e expressly permitted by

statutory authority or

Rule 35. But the de fenda nt does not make this arg ument, and the pa rties see m to debate only

whether Rule 35 applies in § 3582(c) (2) pr ocee dings.

17S t a t e s v

. B r a v o

, 2 0 3 F

. 3 d 7 7 8

, 7 8 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 0 )

. B u t t h e t a s k s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

d o e s h a v e i n a § 3 5 8 2 p r o c e e d i n g s h o w i t i s a s e n t e n c i n g

, a l b e i t a t r u n c a t e d o n e

. 1 8

F o r e x a m p l e

, i n a § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) p r o c e e d i n g

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n g a g e s i n t h i s

a n a l y s i s : ( 1 ) d e t e r m i n e s i f t h e a p p l i c a b l e n e w a m e n d m e n t a c t u a l l y l o w e r s t h e

d e f e n d a n t ’ s g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e ; ( 2 ) i f t h e a m e n d e d r a n g e i s l o w e r

, d e t e r m i n e s t h e

s e n t e n c e i t w o u l d h a v e i m p o s e d g i v e n t h e a m e n d e d g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e

, h o l d i n g

c o n s t a n t a l l o t h e r f

i n d i n g s m a d e a t t h e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c i n g ; a n d ( 3 ) d e c i d e s w h e t h e r

t o i m p o s e a n e w

, r e d u c e d s e n t e n c e o r r e t a i n t h e o r i g i n a l o n e

. S e e U

. S

. S

. G

.

§ § 1 B 1

. 1 0 ( a )

, ( b )

, c m t

. n

. 1 ( A )

, ( B )

, n

. 2 ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. J u l e s

, – F

. 3 d

– , N o

. 0 8

-

1 3 6 2 9

, 2 0 1 0 W L 3 4 8 0 4 4

, a t * 2 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. F e b

. 2

, 2 0 1 0 ) ; B r a v o

, 2 0 3 F

. 3 d a t 7 8 0

-

8 1

. A n d i n d e c i d i n g s e n t e n c e s i n a § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) p r o c e e d i n g

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

c o n s i d e r s

, i n t e r a l i a

, t h e s e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r s f o u n d i n 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( a )

, t h e 1 9

d a n g e r p o s e d t o t h e c o m m u n i t y i f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s e n t e n c e i s r e d u c e d

, a n d t h e

Although the district court had a hear ing w ith Phi llips present, the district court in a 1 8

§ 3582(c) (2) matter

is not required to ha ve a se ntencing hear ing a t all, a def

endant ne ed not be

prese nt, and a suppleme ntal PSR is not required. U nited States v. J ules, – F.3d –, N o. 08-13629,

2010 WL 348044, at *2, *5 (11th Cir. Fe b. 2, 2010). Howe ver, “ eac h party must be g iven notice

of and a n opportunity

to contest new infor

mation relied on by

the district court in a § 3582( c)( 2)

proce eding .” I d. at *5. Nonethe less, “cour ts need not per

mit re-litiga tion of any

information

available at the orig inal sentenc ing” and a pa rty is not entitl ed to re spond to the new infor mation

“whe n the cour

t does not intend to rely

on new infor

mation.” I d. Fur

ther, the district c ourt has

discretion to dec ide whethe r to allow the pa rties to contest newinformation either in writing or

at a he aring . I d.

Section 3553(a) fac tors include the policy statements found in the sente ncing 1 9

g uidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)( 5).

18d e f

e n d a n t ’ s p o s t

- s e n t e n c i n g c o n d u c t

. S e e U

. S

. S

. G

. § 1 B 1

. 1 0 c m t

. n

. 1 ( B ) ( i )

- ( i i i ) ;

B r a v o

, 2 0 3 F

. 3 d a t 7 8 1 ; s e e a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. F a i r

, 3 2 6 F

. 3 d 1 3 1 7

, 1 3 1 8 ( 1 1 t h

C i r

. 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ [ A ] § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n i s n o t a c i v i l p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n a c t i o n

, b u t

r a t h e r a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f a c r i m i n a l c a s e

. . . . [ I t ] g o v e r n s t h e i m p o s i t i o n a n d

s u b s e q u e n t m o d i f

i c a t i o n o f a s e n t e n c e o f i m p r i s o n m e n t

, a n d i t r e f e r s t o t h e s t a t u t e s

a n d r u l e s g o v e r n i n g t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f s e n t e n c e s

. ” ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d

c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ; a c c o r d U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. A l v a r e z

, 2 1 0 F

. 3 d 3 0 9

, 3 1 0 ( 5 t h C i r

.

2 0 0 0 )

.

A c c o r d i n g l y

, i f a d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t s a d e f e n d a n t ’ s § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n

,

m o d i f i e s t h e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e

, a n d i m p o s e s a d i f f e r e n t t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t

, t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a g a i n “ s e n t e n c i n g ” t h e d e f e n d a n t

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. L a w r e n c e

,

5 3 5 F

. 3 d 6 3 1

, 6 3 5 ( 7 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 8 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t “ d i d n o t

h o l d h e a r i n g s o r m a k e o r a l a n n o u n c e m e n t s ” w h e n g r a n t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s

§ 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n

, t h e c o u r t ’ s w r i t t e n o r d e r f u n c t i o n e d a s a “ s e n t e n c i n g ” u n d e r

R u l e 3 5 ( a ) a n d t r i g g e r e d t h e s e v e n

- d a y p e r i o d )

. A s e n t e n c i n g

, w h e t h e r i m p o s i n g

t h e i n i t i a l s e n t e n c e o r a s u b s e q u e n t d i f f e r e n t s e n t e n c e

, i s a s e n t e n c i n g

.

I n d e e d

, t h e g o v e r n m e n t g i v e s u s n o r e a s o n w h y a d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h o u l d h a v e

m o r e t i m e o r a u t h o r i t y t o c h a n g e i t s m i n d a f t e r g r a n t i n g a § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n t h a n

a f t e r a n i n i t i a l s e n t e n c i n g

. W e c o n c l u d e t h e s t r i c t u r e s o f R u l e 3 5 a p p l y b o t h a f t e r

19t h e p l e n a r y i n i t i a l s e n t e n c i n g a n d t h e m o r e t r u n c a t e d § 3 5 8 2 s e n t e n c i n g

p r o c e e d i n g

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. D o t z

, 4 5 5 F

. 3 d 6 4 4

, 6 4 8 ( 6 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 6 )

( r e j e c t i n g d e f

e n d a n t ’ s “ c r e a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n ” o f h i s R u l e 3 5 ( a ) m o t i o n a s a

m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d c o n c l u d i n g t h a t “ [ i ] n t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o n t e x t

, t h e r e

i s s i m p l y n o s u c h t h i n g a s a ‘ m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r ’ a n o t h e r w i s e f i n a l s e n t e n c e ”

g i v e n t h e l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) i n w h i c h a s e n t e n c e c a n b e

m o d i f i e d ) ; a c c o r d U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. H o u s t o n

, 5 2 9 F

. 3 d 7 4 3

, 7 5 3 n

. 2 ( 6 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 8 )

,

c e r t

. d e n i e d

, 1 2 9 S

. C t

. 2 7 6 4 ( 2 0 0 9 )

.

F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s

, w e c o n c l u d e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o n

J a n u a r y 2 6

, 2 0 0 9 t o m o d i f y P h i l l i p s ’ s 3 2 4

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d o n D e c e m b e r

5

, 2 0 0 8

. 2 0

C

. M o t i o n s f

o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

T h e g o v e r n m e n t c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t a n d t h i s C o u r t

h a v e p e r m i t t e d m o t i o n s f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e

f a c t t h a t t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e d o n o t e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e f o r

As to how to count the seve n-day time limi t, Rule 35(c) de fines “se ntencing ” as “ the 2 0

oral a nnounceme nt of the sentenc e.” This provision was adde d to resolve a circ uit spli t as to

whether the impositi on of the sente nce oc curr ed at the or al sentenc ing or upon the enter ing of

the

written judg ment by

the cour t. See Fe d. R. Crim. P . 35(c) advisory committee’s note ( 2004)

(explaining the ne ed for

a def inition of “sentencing ”). B eca use the district cour

t did not make an

oral a nnounceme nt of Phill ips’s new sente nce, the imposit ion of the 324-month sentenc e

occur red on D ece mber 5, 2008 whe n the district court’s w ritten order was e ntere d. See United

States v. L awr ence , 535 F.3d a t 635 (conc luding sa me).

20t h e m a n d h a v e c o n c l u d e d s u c h m o t i o n s t o l l t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g a p p e a l s i n c r i m i n a l

c a s e s

. U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. I b a r r a

, 5 0 2 U

. S

. 1

, 6

- 8

, 1 1 2 S

. C t

. 4

, 6

- 7 ( 1 9 9 1 )

( g o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r a n o r d e r s u p p r e s s i n g e v i d e n c e t o l l s t h e t i m e 2 1

f o r a p p e a l ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. D i e t e r

, 4 2 9 U

. S

. 6

, 7

- 9

, 9 7 S

. C t

. 1 8

, 1 8

- 2 0 ( 1 9 7 6 )

( g o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a n o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l t o l l s t h e t i m e f o r a p p e a l ) ;

U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. H e a l y

, 3 7 6 U

. S

. 7 5

, 7 8

- 8 0

, 8 4 S

. C t

. 5 5 3

, 5 5 5

- 5 7 ( 1 9 6 4 )

( g o v e r n m e n t ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g a f

t e r t h e d i s m i s s a l o f i n d i c t m e n t t o l l s t h e t i m e

f o r a p p e a l ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. V i c a r i a

, 9 6 3 F

. 2 d 1 4 1 2

, 1 4 1 4 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 2 ) ( a

m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s g r a n t o f a n e w t r i a l t o l l s t h e t i m e

f o r a p p e a l )

.

H o w e v e r

, t h e s e d e c i s i o n s d i d n o t i n v o l v e a m o t i o n t o c o r r e c t a n

i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e a n d t h e r e f o r e t h e y d i d n o t n e e d t o a d d r e s s t h e u n a m b i g u o u s

l a n g u a g e i n § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) w h i c h p r o h i b i t s a d i s t r i c t c o u r t f r o m m o d i f

y i n g a n

i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e e x c e p t a s “ e x p r e s s l y p e r m i t t e d b y s t a t u t e o r b y R u l e 3 5

. ”

A n d h e r e t h e s o l e i s s u e i s c o r r e c t i o n o f a n i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e

. S e c t i o n

I n I barr a, the Supre me Court reiter ated: 2 1

that a motion for re hear ing in a criminal case, li ke a motion for rehea ring in a civil

case

, rende rs an other

wise final de cision of a district cour t not final until it decide s

the petition for rehe aring

. I n Dieter

, we reje cted an eff ort to car ve out exceptions to

this g ener al rule in the case of petitions for rehe aring which do not asser t an alleg ed

err or of the law. We think that the Court of Appea l s ’ p re s en t eff ort to car ve out a

differ ent exception to the g ener al rule laid down in Hea ly must likewise be reje cted.

502 U.S. at 6, 112 S. Ct . at 6.

213 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) d o e s n o t i n c l u d e a t e n

- d a y m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s a n

e x c e p t i o n t o t h e s e n t e n c e m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o h i b i t i o n

. S e e D o t z

, 4 5 5 F

. 3 d a t 6 4 8

( c o n c l u d i n g “ t h e r e i s s i m p l y n o s u c h t h i n g a s a m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r a n o t h e r w i s e

f i n a l s e n t e n c e

, ” I b a r r a d o e s n o t h o l d t o t h e c o n t r a r y

, a n d s t r e s s i n g § 3 5 8 2 s e t s f o r t h

t h e l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n w h i c h a s e n t e n c e c a n b e m o d i f i e d )

. T h e f

a c t t h a t t h e

F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e d o n o t e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e f o r m o t i o n s f

o r

r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s n o t t h e b a s i s f o r

, o r e v e n a c o n c e r n f

o r

, o u r d e c i s i o n h e r e

.

R a t h e r

, t h e u n a m b i g u o u s l a n g u a g e i n § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) i s

, c o u p l e d w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t

t h e o n l y i s s u e b e f

o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n t h i s c a s e w a s a r e q u e s t t o m o d i f y t h e 3 2 4

-

m o n t h i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e

.

T h e g o v e r n m e n t a l s o r e l i e s o n d i s t r i c t c o u r t L o c a l C i v i l R u l e 7

. 2 ( E )

, w h i c h

p r o v i d e s : “ W h e n e v e r a p a r t y o r a t t o r n e y f o r a p a r t y b e l i e v e s i t i s a b s o l u t e l y

n e c e s s a r y t o f

i l e a m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r a n o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t

, t h e m o t i o n s h a l l b e

f i l e d w i t h t h e c l e r k o f c o u r t w i t h i n t e n ( 1 0 ) d a y s a f t e r e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r o r

j u d g m e n t

. ” L R 7

. 2 ( E )

, N D G a ( 2 0 0 8 )

. I n t u r n

, L o c a l C r i m i n a l R u l e 1

. 1 ( C ) 2 2

p r o v i d e s : “ [ c ] i v i l l o c a l r u l e s s h a l l a p p l y [ i n c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s ] i n s o f a r a s t h e y

d o n o t c o n f

l i c t w i t h a n y s t a t u t e

, f

e d e r a l r u l e

, l o c a l c r i m i n a l r u l e

, o r i n d i v i d u a l

L ocal Rule 7.2(E ) wa s amende d as of De cembe r 1, 2009 to provide f or a pe riod of 2 2

twenty -eig ht (28) day s after entry of the orde r or judg ment in which to file a motion for

rec onsideration. L R 7.2(E), NDG a (2009) . Be cause this amendment was not y et in eff ect a t the

time that the g overnme nt filed its moti on, the forme r ver sion of the rule a pplies in this case.

22o r d e r

. ” L C r R 1

. 1 ( C )

, N D G a ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. T o t h e e x t e n t t h e g o v e r n m e n t

a r g u e s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o u l d a c t a n d m o d i f y t h e 3 2 4

- m o n t h i m p r i s o n m e n t

s e n t e n c e b a s e d o n t h e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r

, L o c a l C i v i l R u l e 7

. 2 ( E )

c o n f l i c t s w i t h § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ’ s s t a t u t o r y p r o h i b i t i o n o n a c o u r t ’ s m o d i f i c a t i o n o f

a n i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e e x c e p t a s “ e x p r e s s l y p e r m i t t e d b y s t a t u t e o r b y R u l e

3 5

. ” A d d i t i o n a l l y

, b e c a u s e R u l e 3 5 ( a ) ’ s s e v e n

- d a y d e a d l i n e i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l

, i t

c a n n o t b e s q u a r e d w i t h L o c a l R u l e 7

. 2 ( E ) ’ s a l l o w a n c e o f a t e n

- d a y d e a d l i n e f o r

m o t i o n s t o r e c o n s i d e r i n t h e c o n t e x t o f s e n t e n c i n g

. T h e r e f o r e

, L o c a l R u l e 7

. 2 ( E )

d o e s n o t h e l p t h e g o v e r n m e n t h e r e

.

O u r c o n c l u s i o n i n t h i s c a s e i s s t r e n g t h e n e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s u b

j e c t o f t h e

g o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n f

o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s e x a c t l y w h a t R u l e 3 5 ( a ) i s d e s i g n e d t o

a d d r e s s

. T h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t s e n t e n c i n g a d e f e n d a n t u n d e r t h e w r o n g

g u i d e l i n e

, f

o r a c r i m e t o w h i c h h e h a d n o t p l e d g u i l t y

, c o n s t i t u t e s “ c l e a r e r r o r ”

q u a l i f y i n g f o r c o r r e c t i o n u n d e r R u l e 3 5 ( a )

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. Y o s t

, 1 8 5 F

. 3 d

1 1 7 8

, 1 1 8 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 9 )

. A s i n Y o s t

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e r e a p p l i e d t h e w r o n g 2 3

s e t o f s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s w h e n i t g r a n t e d P h i l l i p s ’ s § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n

,

r e s u l t i n g i n a r e d u c t i o n o f h i s s e n t e n c e w h e r e n o n e w a s a u t h o r i z e d

. G i v e n J a m e s

,

I n contra st, it i s not “clea

r er ror” when a

district court imposes a plainly permissible 2 3

sentenc e under

the g uidelines and a

pplicable statutes but misunderstands the br eadth of its

discretion under

the sentenc ing g uidelines, imposing a hig her se ntence than it otherwise would

have imposed. U nited States v. L ett, 483 F.3d 782, 788- 90 (11th Cir. 2007).

23t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s e r r o r “ w o u l d a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y r e s u l t i n a r e m a n d o f t h e c a s e t o

t h e t r i a l c o u r t f

o r f u r t h e r a c t i o n

. ” F e d

. R

. C r i m

. P

. 3 5 a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e ’ s n o t e

( 1 9 9 1 )

. F o r t h a t r e a s o n t o o

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a d t o a c t w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s u n d e r

R u l e 3 5 ( a ) o r n o t a t a l l

.

I I I

. C O N C L U S I O N

W e c o n c l u d e t h a t u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) a n d R u l e 3 5 ( a )

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o n

J a n u a r y 2 6

, 2 0 0 9 d i d n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n a f t e r s e v e n d a y s h a d p a s s e d t o m o d i f y

a n d v a c a t e P h i l l i p s ’ s 3 2 4

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d o n D e c e m b e r 5

, 2 0 0 8

. W e 2 4

t h u s r e v e r s e a n d v a c a t e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r d a t e d J a n u a r y 2 6

, 2 0 0 9

. T h i s

l e a v e s i n t a c t t h e 3 2 4

- m o n t h i m p r i s o n m e n t s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s

o r d e r d a t e d D e c e m b e r 5

, 2 0 0 8 a s w e l l a s t h e c o n s e c u t i v e 6 0

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e f o r t h e

f i r e a r m s o f

f e n s e

.

R E V E R S E D A N D R E M A N D E D

.

Be cause the seve n-day

window in Rule 35(a) is jurisdictional, there is no merit to the 2 4

g overnme nt’s alterna tive arg ument that Phill ips “invited the err or” w hen he f iled his own motion

for r econside ration af

ter the se ven-da

y deadline, a

nd then waive d the issue by failing to arg ue

the issue of untimeliness in the district court in re sponse to the g overnme nt’s motion for

rec onsideration. Reg ardle ss of Phill ips’s own ac tions, the district court did not have jurisdiction

afte r the e x piration of the se ven-da y time limi t.

24