### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Se pt e m be r 19, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14317 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 9 4 - 0 0 5 7 2 - C R - UU B U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M I G U E L P E R E Z , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 19, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M ig u e l P e r e z , p r o c e e d in g p r o s e , ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is2

m ot i on f ora nunc pr o tunc or de ri ndi c a t i ng tha thi s f e de r a l s e nt e nc e w a s t o run com pl et el y c on curr entw i th h i s s t at e s ent ence . H e a ss ert s thatthe di stri ctcourt shou l d h ave i ss ued a nu nc pro tun c orderappl yi ng the t i m e he s penti n federa l c us t ody pr i ort o hi s s e nt e nc i ng t o hi s f e de r a l s e nt e nc e . B e c a us e the r e c or d doe s not s h o w th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in te n d e d th a t P e r e z r e c e iv e c r e d it f o rtim e s p e n t in fe dera l cust od y a gai nsthi s f eder al and st at e s ent ence s, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n , a n d w e A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D P e r e z pl e d gui l ty t o one c ountof r obbe ry of

U ni t e d S t a t e s pr ope r ty , 18 U . S . C . § 2 11 2. In exchange for P er ez ’ s pl ea , the go vernm entagre ed, i nt eral i a, tha ti tw oul d “ notoppos e [ P e r e z ’ s ] r e que s ttha tthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d [ f orthe f e de r a l c ha r ge ] run c onc urr e nt l y w i th the t e r m of i m pr i s onm e ntpr e s e nt l y be i ng se rved by [P er ez ] i n the S t at e of F l ori da. ” R 1-59 at2. A tthatt i m e, P er ez w as serv i n g a 1 7 -year st at e sen t en ce fo r arm ed assau l tan d k i d n ap p i n g ch arg es c om m i tt e d dur i ng a hom e r obbe ry . W i th a n of f e ns e l e ve l of

29 a nd, a s a r e s ul tof the st at e c on vi ct i on s, a c ri m i nal hi st ory of I II , the prob at i on offi ce r c al cul at ed P erez’s app l i cab l e g u i d el i n e ran g e as 1 0 8 t o 1 3 5 m o n th s. A tse nt enci ng , P er ez re qu es t ed thatthe courtconsi der aconcurrent , ra ther than con se cut i ve, se nt ence . R 4 at42 -44. T he di stri ctcourtexpres se d con ce rn that3

s t a t e de f e nda nt s w e r e onl y s e r vi ng a bout20% of the i rt i m e butr a n P e r e z ’ s 135 m onth s e nt e nc e “ c onc urr e nt l y t o the s t a t e s e nt e nc e know i ng tha tM r . P e r e z w i l l do v e ry s u b s ta n tia l tim e ” o n th e f e d e r a l c h a r g e . I d . a t 4 3 , 4 6 , 4 7 ; R 1 - 8 3 a t 2 , R 1 - 8 5 . T he di stri ctj ud ge com m ent ed that , i f P er ez ’ s s ent ence had b ee n “ a day l es s than 135 m onths , ” P e r e z ’ s s e nt e nc e w oul d ha ve be e n m a de c ons e c ut i ve . R 4 a t48. P e r e z m o v e d f

o ra n u n c p r o tu n c o r d e rc la r if y in g th e c o u r t’s in te n t to s e n te n c e h im “to s e r v e h is f e d e r a l s e n te n c e e n tir e ly c o n c u rr e n t” to h is s ta te s e n te n c e , a n d a r g u e d th a t th e B u r e a u o f P r is o n s ( “B O P ” ) u n la w f u lly m o d if

ie d h is s e nt e nc e . R 1- 114. H e m a i nt a i ne d tha tthe B O P ’ s f a i l ur e t o c r e di thi m w i th the s e v e n m o n th s a n d n in e te e n d a y s th a t h e s p e n t in f e d e r a l c u s to d y p r io rto h is s e n te n c in g r e s u lte d in a s e v e n - m o n th in c r e a s e to h is o r ig in a l 1 3 5 m o n th s e n te n c e . R 1- 121 a t2. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge r e c om m e nde d de ni a l of P e r e z ’ s m ot i on, a nd foun d thatan aw ar d o f c re di tw as no tre qu i re d for a defe nd antse nt ence d u nd er§ 5 G 1 .3 (c ), an d th at su ch an aw ar d w as n o t w ar ra n ted in li g h t o f th e d istrict co u rt’s concern re gardi ng the ac tual am ou ntof t i m e thatP er ez w ou l d serve and i t s des i re tha tP e r e z s e r ve a s i gni f i c a nta m ountof

t i m e . T he di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s r eportand recom m endat i on , deni ed P er ez ’ s m ot i on , and d eni ed r e c o n s id e r a tio n . O n appe a l , P e r e z a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on4

f ora nunc pr o tunc or de rbe c a us e i tf a i l e d t o appl y § 5G 1. 3( b) , c om m e nt . ( n. 2) , a nd th e o r d e rw a s n e c e s s a ry to m a k e h is s e n te n c e s f u lly c o n c u rr e n t. H e a r g u e s th a t, if th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s a w a r e th a t h e a c tu a lly s e r v e d 6 5 % , in s te a d o f 2 0 % , o f h is st at e s ent ence , i tw ou l d h ave grant ed hi s m ot i on . T he go vernm entre spon ds that the di stri ctcourtl ac ked j uri sdi ct i on t o g ra ntthe re qu es t ed re l i ef and t hatthe re cord show s thatthe se nt enci ng gu i del i nes w er e properl y app l i ed, and t hatthe di stri ct courti nt ended t hatP er ez se rve a13 5 m on th sent ence . I I . DI S CU S S I ON Al th o u g h th e g o v e rn m e n td i d n o ta s s e r tj u r i s d i c t i o n i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we w i l l r e v i e w th e i s s u e d e n o v o b e c a u s e “ a p a r ty ma y r a i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n a ta n y t i me dur i ng the pe nde nc y of

the pr oc e e di ngs . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G i r a l do- P r a do, 150 F . 3d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 2 9 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) (p er cu ri am ). “ L i t eral l y tran sl at ed , th e [L ] at i n p h rase

‘ nunc pr o tunc ’ m e a ns ‘ now f orthe n. ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H i t c hm on, 587 F . 2d 1357, 1 3 6 0 ( 5 th C ir .) , r e h ’g g r a n te d a n d r e v ’d o n o th e rg r o u n d s , 6 0 9 F .2 d 1 0 9 8 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . C our t s m a y us e nunc pr o tunc or de r s t o: su p p l y o m i ssi o n s i n th e reco rd o f w h atw as actu al l y d o n e i n th e cau se a ta f or m e rt i m e w he n i tw a s unde rc ons i de r a t i on, a nd by m i s t a ke or ne gl e c tnote nt e r e d i n the c l e r k’ s m i nut e s orthe c our t ’ s r e c or ds ; but w he r e the c our tha s om i tt e d t o m a ke a n or de rw hi c h i tc oul d ha ve m a de , a nd i n f

a c ti nt e nde d t o m a ke , i tc a nnots ubs e que nt l y m a ke the s a m e nunc pr o tunc , s o a s t o m a ke i tbi ndi ng upon the pa rt i e s t o the s ui tf r om the da t e w he n i tw a s s o i nt e nde d t o ha ve be e n e nt e r e d; a nd e s p e c ia lly is th is s o in m a tte r s r e la tin g to c r im in a l p r o c e e d in g s . . . .5

Id. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). P er ez as se rt ed thatthe di stri ctcourti nt ended t o i m po se a tru ly c o n c u rr e n t s e n te n c e a n d w a s m e r e ly s e e k in g a r e v is io n o f th e ju d g m e n t to re fl ec tw hatac tual l y occ urre d d uri ng hi s s ent enci ng . T he di stri ctcourthad j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der P er ez ’ s m ot i on because c ou rt s c an use nun c pro tun c orders t o m odi f y r e c or ds t o a c c ur a t e l y r e f l e c tw ha ta c tua l l y happe ne d i n a pr oc e e di ng. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de ny i ng P e r e z ’ s m ot i on be c a us e ne i the rthe f a c tof P e r e z ’ s r e c e i ptof

a c onc urr e nts e nt e nc e northe tr a ns c r i ptof the s e nt e nc i ng h e a r i n g r e f

l e c tth a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti n t e n d e d th a tPe r e z r e c e i v e c r e d i tf o rth e t i me he had served i n federa l cust od y pri or t o sent enci ng . T he di stri ctcourti nd i ca t ed thati tw as se nt enci ng P er ez pu rs uantt o § 5G 1. 3(c) and t he re cord es t abl i shes that th is w a s th e ap p lic a b le g u id e lin e p r o v is io n . A t th e tim e o f

P e r e z ’s s e n te n c in g , § 5 G 1 .3 p r o v id e d th a t: ( a ) I f the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e w a s c om m i tt e d w hi l e the de f e nda nt w a s s e r vi ng a t e r m of

i m pr i s onm e nt. . . , the s e nt e nc e f orthe i ns t a ntof

f e ns e s ha l l be i m pos e d t o run c ons e c ut i ve l y t o the u n d is c h a r g e d te r m o f

im p r is o n m e n t. (b) I f s ub se ct i on (a ) does notappl y, and t he un di sc harged t erm o f im p r is o n m e n t r e s u lte d f r o m o f f e n s e ( s ) th a t h a v e b e e n f u lly t a ke n i nt o a c c ounti n the de t e r m i na t i on of the of f e ns e l e ve l f

or the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e , the s e nt e nc e f

orthe i ns t a ntof

f e ns e s ha l l be i m pos e d t o run c onc urr e nt l y t o the undi s c ha r ge d t e r m of im p r is o n m e n t. ( c ) ( P ol i c y S t a t e m e nt ) I n a ny othe rc a s e , the s e nt e nc e f orthe in s ta n t o f

f e n s e m a y b e im p o s e d to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly , p a r tia lly6

c onc urr e nt l y , orc ons e c ut i ve l y t o the pr i orundi s c ha r ge d t e r m of i m pr i s onm e ntt o a c hi e ve a r e a s ona bl e puni s hm e ntf orthe i nst antoffe nse. U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1. 3 (N ov . 19 95 ). A pp l i ca t i on no t e 2 of § 5 G 1. 3 i nstruct ed that w h en a d efen d an tw as sen t en ced p u rsu an tt o su b sect i o n (b ), a co u rtsh o u l d ad j u st the defendant ’ s s ent ence for t i m e a l re ady s erved as are sul tof the cond uctt aken i nt o a c c ounti n de t e r m i ni ng the i ns t a nts e nt e nc e i f the c our tde t e r m i ne d tha tthe s e r v e d p e r io d o f

im p r is o n m e n t w o u ld n o t b e c r e d ite d b y th e B u r e a u o f P r is o n s . I d . A ppl i c a t i on not e 3 i ns truc t e d c our t s t o c ons i de rf a c t or s s e tf

or th i n 18 U . S . C . §§ 3553 a nd 3584 t o a c hi e ve a r e a s ona bl e s e nt e nc e a nd a voi d unw a rr a nt e d s e nt e nc i ng d is p a r itie s , and b e c og ni za ntof: (a ) the type . . . and l engt h o f the pri or un di sc harged sent ence ; ( b ) th e tim e s e r v e d o n th e u n d is c h a r g e d s e n te n c e a n d th e tim e lik e ly to be se rved before r el ea se ; (c ) the fa ctthatthe pri or un di sc harged se nt ence m ay have been i m pos e d i n s t a t e c our tr a the rtha n f e de r a l c our t. . . ; a nd (d) a ny other c i rc um st ance re l evantt o the det erm i nat i on of an approp ri at e s ent ence for the i nst antoffe nse. I d . S ub se ct i on (a ) w as no tappl i cabl e bec ause P er ez com m i tt ed the fe dera l o f f e n s e b e f o r e h e w a s s e n te n c e d in s ta te c o u r t. S u b s e c tio n ( b ) w a s n o t ap p lic a b le b e c a u s e P e r e z ’s s ta te o f f e n s e w a s c o n s id e r e d in th e d e te r m in a tio n o f o n ly h is c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry a n d n o t h is f e d e r a l o f f e n s e le v e l. A c o u r t is r e q u ir e d to7

i m po se a s ent ence “ [t ] o achi eve are as on abl e pun i shm ent ”, i d. , bu ti s notre qu i re d t o c ons i de rthe t i m e a l r e a dy s e r ve d be f or e s e nt e nc i ng. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J o h n s o n , 8 7 F .3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a c o u r t c o m p lie d w ith s ubs e c t i on 3( c ) w he n i ts e nt e nc e d a de f e nda ntt o a s e nt e nc e tha tw a s c onc urr e nt onl y t o the une xpi r e d por t i on of a s t a t e s e nt e nc e a nd notr e tr oa c t i ve t o the b e g in n in g o f

th a t s e n te n c e ) . T he re cord do es no tre fl ec tthatthe di stri ctcourtsoug htt o i m po se a s ent ence r e tr oa c t i ve t o the be gi nni ng of P e r e z ’ s s t a t e s e nt e nc e . D ur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the di s tr i c tc our ti ndi c a t e d onl y tha tP e r e z ’ s s e nt e nc e w oul d be c onc urr e nt a n d d i d n o ti n d i c a t e th a tPe r e z w o u l d r e c e i v e c r e d i to n h i s f e d e r a l s e n t e n c e f

o rt i me sp en ti n cu st o d y p ri o r t o sen t en ci n g . If i tth e d i stri ctco u rti n t en d ed t o i m p o se P e r e z ’s s e n te n c e in s u c h a m a n n e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a c tu a lly d o s o , a n d it c oul d notm a ke a nunc pr o tunc or de rr e vi s i ng i t s j udgm e ntt o r e f l e c ts om e thi ng tha tdi d notoc c ur . S e e H i t c hm on, 587 F . 2d a t1360; s e e a l s o R e c i l e v. W a r d, 496 F . 2d 67 5, 68 0 (5t h C i r. 19 74 ) ( ho l di ng thata par ty w as no tent i t l ed t o a nu nc pro tun c di sc harge j ud gm entw here thatparty f ai l ed t o sho w thatthe courthad c ons i de r e d s uc h a j udgm e nt ) , r e h’ g de ni e d a nd m odi f i e d on othe rgr ounds , 503 F . 2d 13 74 (197 4) )( per c uri am ). I I I . CONCL US I ON8

P e r e z ha s f

a i l e d t o s how tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta c tua l l y s e nt e nc e d hi m t o a concurrentse nt ence w i th cre di ton hi s f eder al se nt ence for t i m e s penti n federa l c us t ody pr i ort o the i m pos i t i on of hi s f e de r a l s e nt e nc e . H e w a s note nt i t l e d t o a n u n c p r o tu n c o r d e r . T h e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n is , th e r e f

o r e , AF F I RME D.