2009 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 6-26-2009 

# U SA v . S helt on J ohns P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4507

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . S he lt on J o hn s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1119. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1119H onor abl e A r t hurL . A l ar cón, Seni orJ udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe * N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

I N TH E 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
. 08- 4507
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . SH ELT O N J O H N S,

A ppel l ant
O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Fort he D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e ( D . C
. C r i m i nal
. A ct i on N o. 1- 06- cr - 00047- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e. G r egoryM . Sl eet

A r gued M ay12, 2009 Be f o r e : AM BR O, RO T H, a n d AL AR CÓ N, C i r cui tJudges
. * ( Fi l ed: J une 26, 2009)

____________ C hr i s t opherJ . B ur ke ( ARGUE D) O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 1007 N or t h O r ange Str eet , Sui t e 700 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19899- 0000 C ouns el f orAppel l ee2

P a u l M . P e rlste in ( ARGUE D) Per l s t ei n L aw P. O
. B ox 834 D oy l es t ow n, PA 18901- 0000 C ouns el f orAppel l ant

____________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ A L A R C Ó N , C i r cui tJ udge: A p p ell an t Sh elt o n Jo h n s ap p ea ls from the s en tenc e im p o sed b ythe D istri ct C o u rt fol l ow i ng a r emand bythi s C our tbeca us e of the vi ol at i on of R ul e 35 of the Feder al R ul es
o f C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re . Se e U ni t e d S tat e s v . J

oh ns ( “J oh ns I ”) , 282 Fed. A ppx. 123, 125- 26 ( 3d C i r . 2008)
. W e w i l l aff i r m beca us e w e conc l ude thatthe or i gi nal s ent ence i m pos ed b ythe D istri ct C o u rtw as re aso n ab le un d er 1 8 U . S
. C
. § 3 5 5 3 (a). I O n N ovember17, 2006, J ohns pl ed gui l t yt o a one- countfel onyi ndi ctm entof bei ng
a f e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ) a n d § 9 2 4 (a )( 2 ). T h e P re se n ten c e In v e stig a tio n R e p o rt c a lcu late d th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s ra n g e a t 7 0 to 87 m ont hs
. O n M ar ch 23, 2007, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a be l ow - t he- gui del i nes
s ent ence of 60 m ont hs of i ncar cer at i on and thr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt d id n o t sig n o r e n ter a w ritten ju d g m e n t. O n e w e e k late r, o n M a rc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , it i s s ued a “ N ot i ce of

R es ent enci ng” su a sp o n te . A t th e re se n ten c in g h e a rin g , the D istric t C o u rt in f o rm e d c o u n se l th a t “th e C o u rt is3

notgoi ng t o ent er t ai n di s cus s i on fr om ei t herthe governm entordefe ns e. ” The C our tt hen
s t at ed: I have r econven ed the s ent enci ng hear i ng i n t hi s cas e, beca us e,

aft erpr onounci ng s ent ence , i toccurr ed t o m e thatI had p ro n o u n c e d m yse n ten c e w ith o u t g iv in g e f f e c t to th e se n tim e n ts exp res sed byM r. John s, M r. P erl st ei n [def ense co un sel ], and M s. W oody , t hati s M r . J ohns ’ m other , dur i ng the [M ar ch 23, 2007] s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g . In o th e r w o rd s , I had m ade a m is take in im p o s in g a s e n t e n c e o f 6 0 m o n th s u p o n M r. J o h n s . U pon r ef l ect i ng f ur theron the is s ue , I have de t erm i ned thatthe appr opr i at e s ent ence forM r . J ohns i s 36 m onths , r athert han the 60 m ont hs I i m pos ed dur i ng the s ent enci ng hear i ng. I b e liev e th a t a s e n ten c e o f 3 6 m o n th s m o re a p p ro p r ia tely comport s w i th t he under l y i ng goal s of s ent enci ng, w hi ch i ncl ude puni s hm ent , det err ence , and reh abi l i t at i on. M or eover , w hen app l y i ng t he 3 55 3(a) fact ors t o M r. John s, speci fi cal l yt ho se fac t or s t hatdi r ectt he C our tt o consi d er( 1) the natur e and ci r cumst ance s of the off ens e thatM r . J ohns co m m it ted i n the presentcase, and (2) t he hi st ory and charact eri st i cs of M r. John s, th e C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t a se n ten c e o f 3 6 m o n th s a d e q u a tely achi eves tho se goal s of s ent enci ng w hi l e t aki ng i nt o acc ount tho se f ac tors I ha v e jus t des cribe d ea rl ier. (E m p h ase s ad d ed
. ) II T h e G o v e rn m e n t f

iled a n o tice o f

a p p e a l f ro m th e 3 6 -m o n th se n ten c e se t f o rth in t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s j ud gm ent ent ered on A pri l 20 , 20 07
. John s fi l ed a n oti ce of cross appea l
. O n J une 17, 2008, t hi s C our tvaca t ed the s ent ence . I thel d t hat“[b] eca us e the d istric t co u rt d id n o t re se n ten c e Jo h n s o n o r b e f o re A p ril 3 , 2 0 0 7 , [it] la c k e d ju risd ictio n to
s ent ence J ohns t o 36 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent ” i n l i ghtof Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal4

P ro c e d u re 3 5 . Joh ns I, 2 8 2 F e d . A p p x . at 1 2 5 -2 6 . T h e D istric t C o u rt w a s d ire c ted to
r ei m pos e the i ni t i al 60- m ont h s ent ence . Fol l ow i ng r emand, the D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed the
o ri g in a l 6 0 -m o n th s e n te n c e . J o h n s tim e ly ap p e a le d
. III Jo h n s’ s o le a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l is th a t th e 6 0 -m o n th se n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le beca us e the D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed thati thad made a mi s t ake i n i m pos i ng i t . W e di s agr ee. Pr i ort o i m pos i ng t he or i gi nal 60- m onth s ent ence atthe fi r s ts ent enci ng hear i ng, t he D istric t C o u rt sta ted to Jo h n s:

I have c ons i der ed al l of the fact s and ci r cumst ance s of y ourl i fe, i ns ofaras t heyhave be en rep o r t ed t o m e byot her s w ho have w ritten o n y o u r b e h a lf

, an d w ill c o n sid e r th e sta tem e n ts o f b o th y o u r c o u n se l a n d y o u a n d o th e rs a s w e ll, th a t w e re p re se n ted in t he p res ent ence r epor tand r ai s ed i n y ours ent enci ng m em orandu m , m oti on for do w nw ard dep arture, charact er l et t ers , and s t at ement s I am aboutt o hear , al l t hes e fact or s t haty ou poi nt o u ta r e r e l e v a n tu n d e r[ 1 8 U. S
. C. §] 35 53 ( a ) a n d wi l l g u i d e me . . . in d e te rm in in g th e p ro p e r s e n te n c e to im p o s e . A ft eri m pos i ng t he or i gi nal 60- m onth s ent ence , the D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed: I w as encour aged, as I l i s t ened t o y ourw or ds and w i tnes s ed y our del i very , thatt her e maybe a ge nui ne r ecogni t i on at t hi s t i m e of y our p a s t m is d e e d s . . . . [T]he C o u rt is e ncour aged .
. . byt he fa m i l ys uppor tt haty ou have r ece i ved, bot h i n per s on and i n t he form of l et t er s . . . . I have, agai n, s e e n s o m e e v id e n c e o f

th is in y o u r s ta te m e n ts to d a y. . . . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s expl anat i on thati tm ade a “mi s t ake” i n i t s s ent enci ng deci s i on in d ic a te s to u s th a t it h a d a c h a n g e o f h e a rt re g a rd in g th e o ri g in a l 6 0 -m o n th s e n te n c e .T he above A dvi s or yC om m i t t ee N ot es r efe r r ed t o R ul e 35( c) , w hi ch i s now l ocat ed at 1 s u b d iv is io n (a ). S e e id
. (A d v isoryC o m m ittee N o tes, 2 0 0 2 A m en d m en ts)
. 5 R ul e 35( a) of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e pr ovi des that“[w ] i t hi n 7 day s aft er
s ent enci ng, t he courtm aycorr ecta s ent ence thatr es ul t ed fr om ar i t hm et i cal , t echni cal , or ot hercl earerr or . ” Fed. R . C r i m . P. 35( a)
. T he A dvi s oryC om m i t t ee N ot es caut i on, how ever , t hat [ t]h e a u th o rityto c o rre c t a s e n ten c e u n d e r th is s u b d iv isio n is

int end ed t o be very narr ow and t o ext end on l y t o tho se c a se s in w hi ch an obvi ous err oror m i s t ake has occurr ed i n t he s ent ence , t hati s , err or s w hi ch w oul d al m os tcert ai nl yr es ul ti n a r emand of th e c a s e to th e tr ia l c o u rt f o r f u rt h e r a c tio n . . . . The s ubdi vis i on is noti nt ended t o af

f or d the court the opport uni t y t o r econs i der the appl i cat i on ori nt er

pr etat i on of

the s ent enci ng gui del i nes or f or the co urtsi m

ply to chan ge i t

s m i nd ab ou tthe a

pp ropri ateness o f th e s e n te n c e . Id
. (A d v isoryC o m m ittee N o tes, 1 9 9 1 A m en d m en ts) (em p h asis ad d ed ). 1 W e agr ee w i t h t he dec i s i ons of the Second Ci r cui tand otherC i r cui t s thatR ul e 35 p ro h ib its s e c o n d th o u g h ts a b o u t s e n te n c in g d e c is io n s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. A br euC ab rera , 6 4 F .3 d 6 7 , 7 3 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (“ T h e d istric t co u rt in th e in sta n t ca se c h a n g e d its
m ind reg ard ing the s ev erityo f [ the d ef en d an t’ s] sen tenc e. A s a re su lto f C o n g ress’ d esire t o pr ovi de a f

i nal i t yt o s ent enci ng, s uch s econd thought s , no m att erhow w el l i nt ent i oned
a re n o t th e so rt o f

e rro r th a t [ R u le 3 5 (a )] w a s d e sig n e d to re m e d y .”) ( c itatio n o m itt e d ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. C ook , 890 F. 2d 672, 675 ( 4th C i r . 1989) ( “The pow erof a di s t r i ct
c o u rt to a m e n d a se n ten c e d o e s n o t ex ten d to a situ a tio n w h e re th e d istric t ju d g e sim p ly6

c h a n g e s h is m in d a b o u t th e se n ten c e .”); U ni t ed Stat es v. Sadl er , 2 3 4 F .3 d 3 6 8 , 3 7 4 (8 th C i r . 2000) ( “the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s at t empt t o r es ent ence Sadl erunder[R ul e 35( a) ] i l l us t r at es an i m perm i s s i bl e ‘ change of hea r tas t o t he appr opr i at enes s of the s ent ence ’ ”) ( quot i ng A breu-C ab rera , 6 4 F . 3 d at 72 ). I n anyevent , w e ca nnotcons i der , underthe pr ocedur al pos tur e of thi s cas e, the D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s c o m m e n ts a t th e re s e n te n c in g . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Sm al l ey , 517 F. 3d 2 0 8 , 2 1 2 -1 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). F u r t h e r mo r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a tth e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e i s r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r1 8 U. S
. C. § 3553( a)
. Fol l ow i ng t he i m pos i t i on of the 60- m onth, bel ow - t he- gui del i nes s ent ence , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconfi r m ed thati thad cons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s and thatgi ven, among
o th e r t h in g s , J o h n s ’ e x te n s iv e c ri m in a l h is to ry, th e s e n te n c e w a s a p p ro p ri a te . W e a g re e . A tor al ar gum ent , J ohns ’ couns el di d notar gue otherw i s e, conce di ng thathe has “neve r
ar gued that60 m ont hs i s nota r eas onabl e s ent ence . ” B eca us e the 60- m ont h s ent ence or i gi nal l yi m pos ed i n t hi s m at t erw as r eas onabl e, t h e j u d g me n to f

t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r twi l l b e AF F I RMED .