## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 07
- 3947& 08
- 2481 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. L UIS A. P ER EZ, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C R 387

—V irgin ia M . Ken dall, Judg e. No . 87 C R 354

—RubenC astil lo, Judge
. A RG UE D A PRI L 1, 2009

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 28, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, E VANS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . L uis Pe r ez i s no s tr an g ert o the cri m i nalj usti ce s yst e m. Or i g ina l lyc o nv i c t e d and se ntenced o n fede r aldr ugc ha rges fol l o wi nga 1 98 7 j ur y t r i ali n the N or th er n D ist ric t o f Ill in ois , see U nited S t a t es v. P erez , 87 0 F.2 d 12 22 , 12 25 (7t h C ir. 19 89 ), P er ez ex te n d ed h is tim e in c u st od y t h r o u g h a 19 93 p ris on as sa u lt, s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. P erez , 79 F. 3d 79, 80 (7th C ir. 1996); U nited Sta tes v. P erez , 432 N os. 07
- 3947& 08
- 2481 F.3 d 11 31 , 113 2 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ), an d , m os t re c en tly , a vi o l a t i o n o fthe c o nd i t i o ns g o v e r ningh i s s up e r vi sed r el ea se . Pe r ez now a sk s us t o modi fy thi s m o str ec en t sente nce

— ac tu ally , s en te n c es , a s w e s h all ex p lain

— du e t o var i ous pr oce du ra l i rr egul ar i ti es. The com pli cati ons ar i se fro m the f act that not one but t wo dist ri ct j ud ges were re sponsibl e fo r ensuring Perez’ s g oo d b eh av ior w h ile on su p er vi sed r el ea se . Jud ge Ru b en C as tillo m an ag ed th e d oc ke t fro m P er ez ’ s o r igin al c on vic tio n in 1987( N
. D. I l l
. Case N o. 87
- CR

- 35 4), but a new fi l e was op en ed w h en P er ez w as ch ar ge d w ith at ta c k i n g h is cel l m ate ( W
. D. W i s. Case N o. 93
- CR

- 8)
. Because the a tta ck o c c ur r e d a tth e Fe de r a l Co r r e c t i o na l Ins t i t ut i o n a tOx f o r d, W i sco nsi n, i t was pro secute d i n the W est er n Dist ri ct o fthat sta te. W hen Pere z w as fi nal l y r el eas ed fro m pri son i n 200 6, ho wev er, he r etur ne d t o the Chi ca g o a r ea, a nd the W i sc o nsi n case was tr ansfer re d to the N or ther n Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s. I t was as si gned a new docke t num ber( N
. D. I l l
. Case N o. 07 -C R
- 3 8 7 ) an d p lac ed in t h e h an d s o f Ju d ge V irg in ia Ke n d a l l
. S o b y th e t i me 2 0 0 7 r o l l e d a r o u n d , we ha d t wo j ud ges m oni tor i ng Perez

— to o m u c h of a go od th in g, as it turns out. I t wasn ’t long bef or e Per ez f ound his way backi nto tr oubl e. H e f ai l ed t o atte nd psycho ther apy appointm ents i n 2 00 6; f ai l ed s ev er alm an dat o r y drugte st s i n tha t an d the follo w in g y ea r; w a s a rre st ed by C h ica go p olic e o ffice rs in February20 07 f orthr ea tening hi s wife; and fi nal l y was ar re ste d on two l ate r occa si ons ( M ay 13, 2007, and J une 28, 2007 ) f o r v i o l at i nga pr o te ct i ve o r derde si g ne d t o ensu re hi s f ami l y ’ s sa fety . W hen the pr o ba ti o n de par tmentN os. 07
- 3947& 08
- 2481 3
r epo r te d the se ev en ts to J udg es Cast i l l o and Ke nda l l i n the su m m er of 2007, both j ud ges sch ed uled revocati o n h eari ng s. The r e was no th i ngt ec hni ca l l y i m pr o perabo ut that

— th e s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e o r d e r s p e r t a i n e d t o t wo separ ate cas es

—but, prag m ati cally, thi ngs woul d get tr i cky
. Consol i dati ng the case s w oul d probably hav e be en a be tt erwayt o pr o ce ed buttha t, a l as , di dn’ t ha ppen . J udg e Kenda l l r ul ed fi r st . On Augus t 6, 2 00 7, f oll owi ng an ev i denti ar y hea ring, she re vok ed Per ez’ s r el eas e o n su per vi si o n a nd s en te nc ed hi m t o 1 4 mo n th s i mpr i so nm en t to be fol l owed b y a fre sh, 22
- m onth t er m o fsuperv i sed release. T ha t ruling, how ever, w as sh ort-l ived
. A t Perez ’s re q u es t, Ju d ge K en d all re c on sid er ed h er d ec isio n an d h eld a new hear i ng. I t d i dn ’ t w or k out t oo wellf orPer ez. A fter re cei vi ng new evi dence of a vei l ed thre at against a pro bation officer, J ud ge K en d allde cid e d P e r ez d eserve d m ore ti m e be hi nd bar s: 24 m onths i nstea d of14 ( f ol l owed by 12 m on th s o f su p er vis ed r e lea se ). Pe re z im m ed iat ely appeal ed the new se ntence ar gui ng, ir oni cal l y e nough, that th e cou rt lacke d jurisdiction to ch an ge th e s en ten ce. M ore on th is l ater. I n the m eanti m e, J ud ge Casti l l o hel d a ser i es ofhear i ngs to deter m i ne the co nsequences f orPer ez i n the othe r cr i m i na l cas e. The sa m e ba si c ev i den ce was pr es en te d, a nd J ud ge Casti l l o cam e t o a s i m i l arcon c l usi on in an o ra l ruling ha nd ed dow n o n M ay 9, 2008 : Perez n eed ed m ore ti m e in pri son. But at t h is point thi ngs g et fuzzy. J ud ge Ca s t i l l o wa s a wa r e tha tP e r e z h a d a pp e a l e d J ud g e Ke nd

al l ’ s m odi fi ed sente nce a nd , acc or ding to Pere z, the l ength ofJ ud ge Casti l l o’ s s entence hi nged on the o utcom e o fthat4 N os. 07
- 3947& 08
- 2481

Tha tt ra ns l at es in to 31 m onths

— the fi gur e not ed i n the 1 j udgm en t

— when c ount i ng c re di t f or t i m e s er ved i n c onn ec t i on w ith J ud ge K endall’ s cas e. appeal
. In Per ez’ s v i ew , pre m i sed o n the or i gi nalo ra l rul i ng, J ud ge Casti l l o i ntended to sente nce him t o 12 m onths i m pri sonm ent, to be serve d conse cuti vel y t o J ud ge K endal l ’ s s entence rega rdless o f w hether the l att erse ntence w as u ph e l d o r v a c a t e d o n a pp e a l
. Und e r thi s v i e w, P er ez w ou ld sp en d l e s s to tal ti m e in prison if Jud ge K en d all ’s or i gi nalse ntence w er e reinstat ed; m or e i fthe sente nce, as mod i fi e d, h e l d u p. T he g o v er nme nt, o n the o the r h a nd , re l yi ng o n l ate r sta tem ents by J ud ge Casti l l o and the fi nal w ri tte n j ud gm ent i ssued o n J une 25, 20 08, co ntends that Ju d ge C as tillo w an te d h is s en te n c e t o b e c om p let ely unaffecte d by th e ou tco m e o fthe appeal
. H e m eant f or Pe r e z t o s t a y i n j a i l f o r a t o t a l o f3 6 mo nths , p e r i o d. 1 J us t r ec i tinga l l thi s i s d izzyin g . I t’ s no won derthe parti es ar e co nfused

— so a r e we. Butwe ha ve a s o l ut i o n. F i r sto ff, we ca n m ak e sh o r t wor ko fthe a ppea l r eg ar di ng J ud ge K endal l ’ s m odi fi e d s e nte nc e . T heg o v e rnm ent a gr ees that she l acke d j uri sdic ti on t o re open the r evo cati on proce edi ngs; l i ke Pere z, it urg es us to r ei nstat e the o ri gi nal sente nc e o f1 4 m o nths i m pr i so nm en t an d 2 2 m o nths sup er vi sed r el eas e. W e hav e no o thero pti on. Because J ud ge K endal l m odi fi ed the sente nce i n a s ubstanti ve w ay w el l bey ond the s eve n-day peri od set fo rth i n Rule 35( a) o f the Feder al Rules of Cri m i nal Pro cedure, the change f ai l s, at a m in im u m , for w an t of j u ris d ict ion
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Goode, 34 2 F.3d 74 1, 74 3 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); cf. F ed. R. Cri m . P. 36 (aut horizing correct ion of cl e r i ca l errors at any tim e).N os. 07
- 3947& 08
- 2481 5 Y et th e pa rties sti llcross sw ord s o v er Jud ge C astill o’s se nt en c e . Aft e r r e v i e wi n gth e t r a n s c r i p t s a n d fi l i n g s , we c an n otsa y w ith c e rt ain ty ex ac tly w h at Ju d ge C as tillo i nt en ded. W e sh al l th er efo r e va ca te th e se nt ence an d re m and the m att erto J ud ge Casti l l o so he ca n c ra ft a new se n te n c e re flec tin g h is or igin al in te n t. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. D augh er ty, 26 9 U.S
. 36 0, 36 3 ( 1926 ) ( “Se ntences i n cr i m i nal ca se s sh o ul d r ev ea l wi thf ai r c er ta i nty t he i nt en t o fthe cour t and exclude any seri ous m i sapprehensi ons by those w h o m u st ex ec u te th em .”); U nite d State s v. B ullock, 85 7 F
. 2d 367, 37 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) (r em an ding w here se ntence w as u n c l e a r); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Garza , 4 48 F
. 3d 29 4, 3 02 ( 5th Cir. 2006 ) (sa m e)
. T o the extent the par ti es al so tak e i ssue w i th th e sup ervised rel ease co m p one nt of Jud ge C a stil lo’ s s e nt e nc e , tha t, t o o , ma y b e c l e a r e d u p o n r e man d. T h e a m en d ed se n te n c e i m p os ed by Ju d ge K en d all is V ACATED , and the or i gi nal s en tence i s R EI NST ATED . The sente nce i m posed by J ud ge Casti l l o i s V ACATED , a nd the case i s R EMA NDE D f orr ese ntenci ng.

4- 28- 09