2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-13-2008 

# U SA v . B i gle r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1539

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . B i gle r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1231. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1231NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 07- 1539

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. BRE NT BI GLE R, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 04- cr - 00338- 2) D i s t r i ctJ udge: C hr i s t opherC . C onner

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 3, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , F IS H E R a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: M ay13, 2008)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . B r entB i gl ers eeks r evi ew of an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s “mot i on forcl ar i fi cat i on of the pl ea agr eement ” i nt o w hi ch he e nt er ed. B i gl ercont ends t hatbeca us e he ha d a pr i oragr eement2

w i t h t he governm entt hatw as compl et el ys epar at e fr om t he ul t i m at e pl ea a gr eement , t he D i s t r i ctC our ti ncorr ect l ydet er m i ned thatt he pr i oragr eementw as s uper s eded. For t he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on. T her efor e, we wi l l v a c a t e t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s o r d e ra n d d i s mi s s t h e a p p e a l . I n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , i f we w er e t o concl ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on, w e w oul d aff i r m i t s deci s i on on t he m eri t s. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl yt hos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. B eg inn ing in A u g u st 20 0 1 , D ef en d an t B ren t B igler, D ary l B ell , an d o thers cons pi r ed t o defr aud D ent s pl yI nt ernat i onal ( “D ent s pl y ”) . T hr ough an el abor at e thr eey ears cheme i nvol vi ng t he r es al e of de nt al equi pm entobt ai ned atno char ge thr ough an i ncent i ve pr ogr am, D ent s pl yw as defr auded outof equi pm entw or t h $1. 8 m i l l i on. A f ter b e in g a p p re h e n d e d , B ig ler re a c h e d a p lea a g re e m e n t w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t in w h ic h h e a g re e d to p le a d g u ilty to c o n s p ir a c yto c o m m it m a il f ra u d a n d a f

o rf e itu re c o u n t. B efor e r eac hi ng a fi nal pl ea a gr eement , B i gl er ’ s couns el m ai l ed a l et t ert o t he governm ent dat ed M ar ch 30, 2004, w hi ch s oughtt o m emori al i ze a n al l eged a gr eementbetw een the t w o s i des . T he agr eementas des cr i bed i n t he l et t erw as t hatt he moneys ei zed f r om t he bank ac countof B i gl er ’ s s hel l corpor at i on, T exas W hol es al e D ent al Suppl y , w oul d notbe3

for fei t ed. I ns t ead, t he moneyw oul d be count ed as a vol unt aryt r ans fergoi ng t ow ar ds for es eea bl e r es t i tut i on. T he fi nal pl ea a gr eement , w hi ch B i gl ers i gned and da t ed on O ct ober5, 2004, s t i pul at ed thathe w oul d for fei t$354, 729 s ei zed f r om t he bank a ccountof Texas W h o lesale D en tal S u p p ly , an d h is i n terest i n rea l est ate loc ated in P lano , T ex as. In addi t i on, B i gl eragr eed t o payr es t i tut i on t o t he vi ct i m . Fi nal l y , t he agr eementcont ai ned an i nt egr at i on cl aus e thats t at ed: “[T] hi s document. . . s uper s edes al l pr i or u n d e rs ta n d in g s , if

a n y , w h e th e r w ri tte n o r o ra l.” A fter f inalizi n g the p lea a g ree m en t, the p arti es p rese n ted it t o the D istri ct C o u rt and B i gl erent er ed hi s gui l t ypl ea. A tt hatt i m e, t he governm entr eci t ed the es s ent i al pr ovi s i ons of the agr eement . T he D i s t r i ctC our tas ked B i gl erand hi s couns el i f the governm enthad gi ven an a ccur at e s um m aryof the pl ea a gr eement . B i gl er ’ s couns el s t at ed thatt he s um m aryw as acc ur at e, butt hatcl ar i fi cat i on w as neede d r egar di ng t he f o rf e itu re o f th e T e x a s p ro p e rty . T h e p a rties c lar if ied th e sp e c if

ics o f th e re a l es tate for fei tur e, w hi ch ar e notati s s ue i n t hi s appea l . T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen as ked aga i n i f the su m m a ryo f

th e p lea a g re e m e n t w a s a c c u ra te. B ig ler a n d h is c o u n se l b o th a g re e d th a t it w as, an d w ith n o o b

jecti o n the D istri ct C o u rtinco rpo rated the f inal o rde r of

fo rfe itu re in to th e o ra l p ro n o u n c e m e n t o f se n ten c e a n d in to th e ju d g m e n t. A l m os ta y earaft erB i gl erw as s ent ence d on D ece m ber2, 2005, he fi l ed a mot i on for“cl ar i fi cat i on of the pl ea a gr eement ” on N ovember30, 2006. R el y i ng on t he4

M ar ch 30, 2004 l et t erfr om hi s couns el , B i gl ercl ai m ed thata di s cr et e agr eementexi s t ed and du e t o it s com plet el yseparat e natur e, i tw as not s up ers eded byt he int egrat i on cl ause i n t he pl ea a gr eement . T he al l eged a gr eementw as fort he s ei zed f unds t o countt ow ar ds r es t i tut i on, and bec aus e B i gl erhad al r eadypr ovi ded ful l r es t i tut i on, he ar gued thatt he s ei zed f unds s houl d be r etur ned t o hi m . T he D i s t r i ctC our tchar act er i zed Bi gl er ’ s m ot i on as a mot i on t o amend t he pl ea a gr eementand deni ed i tfort hr ee r eas ons : B i gl erhad w a iv e d h is rig h t to c o n tes t th e f o rf e itu re , h e h a d a g re e d to p ro v id e f u ll res titu tio n to D ent s pl y , and al l pr i orunder s t andi ngs had bee n s uper s eded byt he pl ea a gr eement . B i gl er f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. II. “Feder al cour t s ar e notcour t s of gene r al j ur i s di ct i on; t heyhave onl yt he pow ert hat i s aut ho ri zed b yA rt i cl e II I of t he C on st i tuti on and t he st atutes enacted byC on gress pur s uantt her et o. ” B e n d e r v . W ill ia m sp o rt A re a S c h . D ist. , 4 7 5 U . S . 5 3 4 , 5 4 2 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . We h a v e “ a n o b lig a tio n to in q u ire su a sp o n te in to [ o u r] o w n ju risd ictio n a n d , n e c e ss a rily , into t he j ur i s di ct i on of the D i s t r i ctC our tt o ent ert he or deron appea l . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Higgs , 5 0 4 F .3 d 4 5 6 , 4 5 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . I d. at 458. I f w e w er e t o concl ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on, anal y s i s of the pl ea agr eementw oul d be nec es s ary . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he i nt erpr et at i on and5

e n f o rc e m e n t o f

a p le a a g re e m e n t. See U n itedS ta tes v . G e b b ie , 294 F. 3d 540, 544- 45 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). III . B i gl erar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tdeni ed hi s “mot i on for cl ar i fi cat i on of the pl ea a gr eement ” on the bas i s t hatanypr i oragr eementw as s uper s eded acc or di ng t o t he i nt egr at i on cl aus e of the pl ea a gr eement . T he governm entcont ends t hat t he C our tl acke d s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on t o ent er t ai n hi s m ot i on. E ven i f j ur i s di ct i on di d exi s t , t he governm entar gues , no s epar at e agr eementexi s t ed and a nys uch agr eement w oul d have be en s uper s eded byt he i nt egr at i on cl aus e. A ft erexami ni ng t he purpos e of Bi gl er ’ s “mot i on forcl ar i fi cat i on of the pl ea agr eement , ” as w el l as t he t extof the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e and c ont r ol l i ng p rec ed en t, w e c o n clud e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t hav e jurisdicti o n o v er B igler’s m o tio n . In th e a ltern a tiv e , if th e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n , w e w o u ld a f f irm its deni al of B i gl er ’ s m ot i on. A . I n hi s m ot i on, B i gl ers oughtt o have the moneys ei zed byt he governm entappl i ed t o hi s r es t i tut i on i ns t ead of bei ng t r eat ed as a for fei tur e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdes cr i bed B i gl er ’ s m ot i on as a “mot i on t o amend t he pl ea a gr eement ” w i t houts peci fi cal l ynot i ng underw hi ch R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e the mot i on had bee n fi l ed.6

T he Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e pr ovi de the r equi r ement s forfi l i ng a m o tio n to c o rre c t a s e n ten c e : “W ith in 7 d a y s a f ter se n ten c in g , the c o u rt m a yc o rre c t a s ent ence t hatr es ul t ed fr om ar i t hm et i cal , t echni cal , orot hercl earerr or . ” F ED . R. C R IM . P. 3 5 (a ). W e h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t th is s e v e n -d a ytim e lim it i s ju risd ictio n a l, be c a u se it i s b a s e d o n a s ta tu te . Higgs , 504 F. 3d at464. T her efor e, as s um i ng t hatB i gl er ’ s m ot i on w as a R ul e 35( a) m ot i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o ent er t ai n i tbeca us e i tw as fi l ed w el l bey ond s even da y s aft ers ent enci ng. I n Higgs , t h e d e f

e n d a n tf i l e d h i s Ru l e 3 5 ( a ) mo t i o n wi t h i n t h e s e v e n - d a yt i me l i m i t , butt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notrul e on hi s m ot i on unt i l aft ert he s even da y s had p a s s e d . I

d. a t 4 5 8 -5 9 . W e d e ter m in e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n m u st b e f iled w ith in t he s even da y s , and i n addi t i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tm us trul e on the mot i on w i t hi n t he s e v e n -d a ytim e lim it. I

d. I n d e c i d i n g wh e t h e rt h e s e v e n - d a yl i mi twa s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , we not ed thatt he Supr eme C our tcas e of B o w les v . R u ss e ll , 127 S. C t . 2360 ( 2007) , w as c o n tr o llin g . Higgs , 504 F. 3d at464. I n B ow l es , t he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned that“i f a t i m e l i m i t at i on i s s etfor t h i n a s t atut e, i ti s j ur i s di ct i onal . ” I d. W e conc l uded thatt he Ru l e 3 5 s e v e n - d a yt i me p e r i o d “ d e r i v e s f r o m th e l i mi t a t i o n s e tf

o r t h b ys t a tu t e , 1 8 U. S . C. § 3582( c) . ” I

d. T h e re f

o re , w e d e ter m in e d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n to hearH i ggs ’ s R ul e 35 mot i on; w e vac at ed the or derdeny i ng t he mot i on and di s m i s s ed the a p p e a l. I d.7

In th is c a se , B ig ler d id n o t f ile h is R u le 3 5 m o tio n u n til n e a rlya y e a r a f ter h is s ent enci ng. T hi s m eans , of cour s e, t hatnei t hert he mot i on nort he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng w er e w i t hi n t he R ul e 35 s even- dayt i m e fr ame. A s w e det erm i ned i n Higgs , t he se v e n -d a ytim e f

ra m e is ju risd ictio n a l, so th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n to e n te rt a in B ig le r’ s m o tio n . Higgs di ct at es t hatw e mustvaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al o f th e m o tio n a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. I d. at465. B . In th e a ltern a tiv e , B ig ler ’s “ m o tio n f o r c lar if ica tio n o f

th e p lea a g re e m e n t” c o u ld have be en cons t rued as a R ul e 36 mot i on. R ul e 36 pr ovi des t hat“the courtm ayatany t i m e corr ecta cl er i cal err ori n a j udgm ent , or der , orot herpar tof the r ecor d, orcorr ectan err ori n t he r ecor d ar i s i ng fr om over s i ghtorom i s s i on. ” F ED . R. C R IM . P. 36. T h u s, if B ig ler ’s m o tio n h a d b e e n c o n stru e d a s a re q u e st f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to corr ectan err orunderR ul e 36, t he C our tw as fr ee t o do s o “atanyt i m e. ” I d. C ons i der i ng t he s ubs t ance of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng t he mot i on, w e conc l ude t hati f the D i s t r i ctC our thad pos s es s ed j ur i s di ct i on, i t s deni al of r el i ef w oul d have be en p rop er.P rin c ip les o f

c o n tra c t law g o v e rn th e in ter p re tatio n o f p lea a g re e m e n ts, a n d b o th th e d e f e n d a n t a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t a re b o u n d b yth e te rm s o f th e a g re e m e n t. U

ni t ed Stat es v . Wi l l i a ms , 5 1 0 F .3 d 4 1 6 , 4 2 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. B ut l er , 297 F. 3d 505, 513 n. 8 ( 6t h C i r . 2002) ( “[A ] n i nt egr at i on cl aus e nor m al l ypr event s a cr i m i nal8

defe ndant , w ho has ent er ed i nt o a pl ea a gr eement , fr om as s er t i ng t hatt he governm ent m ade or al pr om i s es t o hi m notcont ai ned i n t he pl ea a gr eementi t s el f. ”) . I n t hi s cas e, B ig ler w a s b o u n d b yth e f o llo w in g ter m s o f

th e p lea a g re e m e n t: (1 ) h is a g re e m e n t to forfei tt he fu nd s, (2) his agreem ent t o m ake rest i tuti on , and (3) t he int egrat i on cl ause speci fy i ng t hat the p l ea agreem ent s up ers eded anyotheragreem ents . I n addi t i on, t he M ar ch 30, 2004 l et t erfr om B i gl er ’ s couns el t o t he governm ent s how s onl yB i gl er ’ s pos i t i on w i t h r egar d t o t he pl ea ne got i at i ons . I n t he abs ence of any r es pons e fr om t he governm ent , t he l et t erdoes notdemonst r at e an unde r s t andi ng betw een t he tw o s i des . T her efor e, B i gl er ’ s ar gum entaboutt he al l eged s epar at e agr eementl acks m e rit. I V. I f w e had c oncl uded thatt he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on, w e w oul d have aff i r m ed i t s deci s i on. For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thati tdi d nothave j ur i s di ct i on. T her efor e, w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng B i gl er ’ s m ot i on a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l.