FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT FEB 13, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 13917 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 86 -001 85 -C R -R L V -1-1 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 C A R L L O U I S C O P P O L A , 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 o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 13, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C a r l L oui s C oppol a , af e de r a l pr i s one r , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of2

hi s m ot i on t o c orr e c ta n i l l e ga l s e nt e nc e , w hi c h he f i l e d pur s ua ntt o apr i orve r s i on o f F e d . R . C r im . P . 3 5 ( a ) . W e A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D T h e p e r tin e n t f

a c ts u n d e r ly in g C o p p o la ’s c o n v ic tio n s a r e d e ta ile d a t le n g th i n o ur pri or op i ni on i n h i s c as e, U ni t ed S t at es v. C hu rc h, 95 5 F . 2d 68 8 (11 th C i r. 19 92 ). F or pu rposes of thi s app ea l , i n 1 98 7 a j ury c on vi ct ed C op po l a on a nu m ber of c ount s a r i s i ng outof

athi r t e e n- y e a rc r i m i na l e nt e rpr i s e i nvol vi ng the i m por t a t i on, pur c ha s e , a nd di s tr i but i on of m a r i j ua naa nd c oc a i ne . A m ong the c ount s f orw hi c h C oppol aw a s c onvi c t e d w a s one c ountof e nga gi ng i n a c o n tin u in g c r im in a l e n te rp r is e ( “C C E ” ) , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 8 ( C o u n t 3 ) , a n d tw o c o u n ts o f

c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e , in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 (C ou nt s 5 and 7 , re spec t i vel y) . T he di stri ctcourt sen t en ced C o p p o l a t o serv e 4 0 years i n co n n ect i o n w i th th e C C E o ffen se. B ecau se “it is th e la w o f

th is c ir c u it th a t c o n s p ir a c y o f f e n s e s m e r g e w ith a[ C C E ] o f f e n s e ,” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R os e ntha l , 793 F . 2d 1214, 1246 ( 11th C i r . 1986) , how e ve r , the di s tr i c tc our tm e r ge d the tw o c ons pi r a c y of f e ns e s w i th the C C E of

f e ns e . T hus , the c our t ’ s 40- y e a rs e nt e nc e w a s ba s e d onl y on the C C E c onvi c t i on. S e e R 1- 77 a t4; C h u r c h , 9 5 5 F .2 d a t 6 9 0 n .2 . C oppol aappe a l e d hi s c onvi c t i ons on anum be rof gr ounds . S e e C hur c h, 955Th efo rm er R ule35 (a) of th e Fe deral Rule s o f C rimin al Proc e dure , which a pp lie s in 1 Coppo la ’s c a se , state d: “ [t]he c ourt may c or re c t an ille g al sentenc e at any tim eand may c or re c t a sentenc e imposed i n an il leg al m anner within the t ime provided herein for the reduction of sentenc e

. . . . ”Se eUnite d State s v . Jorda n, 91 5 F .2 d 6 22 , 6 24(1 1th Cir . 1 99 0) (ci ti ng Fed. R. Crim. P . 35(a) ). The r

ule was a mended with implementation of the SentencingReform Act of 1984. I d. n.4. 3 F . 2d at69 0. U po n revi ew , w e a ff i rm ed C op po l a’ s C C E conv i ct i on , bu tw e vac at ed th e tw o sep arat e co n sp i racy co n v i ct i o n s, ag reei n g th at , as l esser i n cl u d ed o ffen ses, th ey m erg ed w i th th e C C E co n v i ct i o n . S ee i d . at6 9 0 , 7 0 3 . H o w ev er, b ecau se th ere w as n o sen t en ce i m p o sed i n co n n ect i o n w i th th e tw o co n sp i racy co n v i ct i o n s, i d . n . 2 , a n d b e c au s e Co p p o l a ’ s 4 0 - y e a rs e n t e n c e h a d b e e n b a s e d s o l e l y o n th e CCE conv i ct i on , R 1-77 at4, ou r vac atur of the tw o con spi ra cyconv i ct i on s had no ef fe ct o n th e 4 0 - y e a rs e n te n c e . C o p p o las u b s e q u e n tly f ile d am o tio n w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to c o rr e c t h is se nt ence , pu rs uantt o the form erR ul e 35(a) . In hi s m ot i on , C op po l a argued that 1 be c aus e hi s c ons pi r a c y c onvi c t i ons ha d be e n va c a t e d i n C hur c h, he w a s now ent i t l ed t o a re se nt enci ng on hi s C C E conv i ct i on . T he di stri ctcourtre j ec t ed that ar gu m ent . T he courtob se rved thatC op po l a’ s 40-ye arse nt ence had b ee n b as ed s o l e l y o n th e C C E c o u n t , a n d th a tn o s e n t e n c e h a d b e e n i m p o s e d f o rth e two c o n s p i r a c y c o n v i c t i o n s d u e t o th e f a c tth a tth o s e c o n v i c t i o n s me r g e d w i th th e CCE c o n v i c t i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y , th e c o u r tf o u n dth a tth e v a c a tu ro f C o p p o l a ’ s two conspi ra cyconv i ct i on s i n C hu rc h sho ul d h ave no effe cton the 40 -y ear s ent ence4

i m po se d p ursuantt o the C C E char ge. A l tho ug h the courtconcl ud ed that“ there w a s n o [ c o n s p ir a c y - b a s e d ] s e n te n c e to v a c a te ,” it u s e d its m in is te r ia l p o w e rto e lim in a te a ll r e f

e r e n c e s to th e tw o c o n s p ir a c y c o u n ts f r o m C o p p o la ’s ju d g m e n t. R 1 - 7 7 a t 5 . A f

te rd o in g s o , th e c o u r t d e n ie d C o p p o la ’s R u le 3 5 ( a ) m o tio n to c o rr e c t h is s e n te n c e . T h is ap p e a l f o llo w e d . I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n appe a l , C oppol aa 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 on to c o rr e c t h is s e n te n c e . T h e q u e s tio n o f w h e th e rad is tr ic t c o u r t h a s au th o r ity to r e s e n te n c e ad e f

e n d a n t u n d e rf

o rm e rR u le 3 5 ( a ) is ale g a l q u e s tio n s u b je c t to p le n a ry r e v ie w . U n ite d S ta te s v . Sje k lo c h a , 1 1 4 F .3 d 1 0 8 5 , 1 0 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs a r e r e vi e w e d f

orc l e a re rr or , a nd i t s appl i c a t i on of the f a c t s t o the l a w i s r e vi e w e d de novo. I d. C o p p o la ’s ap p e a l c o n te n d s th a t th e 4 0 - y e a rp r is o n s e n te n c e im p o s e d in c onne c t i on w i th C ount3, the C C E c ount , i s “ i l l e ga l ” a c c or di ng t o the l a ngua ge of R u l e 3 5 ( a ) , a n dth a tth e r e f o r e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ts h o u l d h a v e a c t e d t o c o rr e c ti t . He a r g u e s th a t th e tw o c o n s p ir a c y c o n v ic tio n s w h ic h w e r e la te rv a c a te d “m a y w e ll h a v e p la y e d ar o le ” in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to im p o s e th e 4 0 - y e a rs e n te n c e . R epl y B r. of A pp el l antat5. A l tho ug h h e a gree s thatthe se nt enci ng courtm er ged the tw o con spi ra cychar ges i nt o the C C E conv i ct i on – and al tho ug h h e f urther5

c o n c e d e s th a tn o s e p a r a t e s e n t e n c e wa s e v e ri m p o s e d i n c o n n e c t i o n wi th th e two c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge s , s e e B r . of A ppe l l a nta t7–he ne ve r the l e s s a r gue s tha tthe c o n s p ir a c y c h a r g e s m a y h a v e b e e n u n d u ly r e lie d u p o n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in f orm ul a t i ng hi s 40- y e a rC C E s e nt e nc e . A c c or di ngl y , he a r gue s tha tar e s e nt e nc i ng i s app ropri at e. W e di s a gr e e w i th thi s c ont e nt i on. I n i t s or i gi na l s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i on, the di stri ctcourtm ade c l ear thatthe tw o con spi ra cycoun t s, C ou nt s 5 and 7 , m er ged w i th the C C E coun t . R 1-77 at4. C on se qu ent l y, the courtst at ed thati tw as i m po si ng a 40-ye arse nt ence pu rs uantt o the C C E conv i ct i on ; no se nt ence w as ever i m po se d for C ou nt s 5 or 7. Id. W e observed thi s f ac tw hen w e l at ervaca t ed C oppol a ’ s c ons pi r a c y c onvi c t i ons i n C hur c h. A f t e rs t a t i ng tha tw e w e r e va c a t i ng h is c o n v ic tio n s o n C o u n ts 5 a n d 7 , w e n o te d th a t “th e d is tr ic t c o u r t di d not sen ten ce C o

p p o la f o r h is co n vi ct i o n s o n th ese tw o co u n t s. ” 9 5 5 F .2 d a t 6 9 0 n .2 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . We d i d n o tv a c a t e C o p p o l a ’ s s e n t e n c e i n C h u r c h wh e n we va c a t e d hi s c ons pi r a c y c onvi c t i ons , be c aus e , a s the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y not e d, the r e w a s no c orr e s pondi ng s e nt e nc e t o va c a t e . C f . R ut l e dge v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 517 U .S . 2 9 2 , 2 9 5 , 3 0 7 , 1 1 6 S . C t. 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 5 0 -5 1 (1 9 9 6 ) ( v ac atin g d ef en d an t’ s c onvi c t i ons a nd hi s s e nt e nc e , w he r e he r e c e i ve d tw o s e pa r a t e s e nt e nc e s , one f or c ons pi r a c y a nd one f

orC C E ) ; R os e ntha l , 793 F . 2d a t1246 ( s a m e ) . B e c aus e the6

di stri ctcourtdi d n oti m po se any s ent ence i n con nect i on w i th the no w -vac at ed conspi ra cychar ges, w e are no tpres ent ed w i th a conspi ra cy -bas ed se nt ence w arrant i ng a vac atur. N or ca n w e a cc eptC op po l a’ s s pecul at i ve cont ent i on thatthe tw o con spi ra cy c ount s “ m a y w e l l ha ve pl a y e d ar ol e ” i n hi s 40- y e a rC C E s e nt e nc e . R e pl y B r . of A pp el l antat5. In fa ct , the se nt enci ng courtexpres sl y s t at ed thatthe 40 -y ear s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d ba s e d upon C oppol a ’ s C C E c onvi c t i on a l one ; i tm a de no m e nt i on of

the c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge s i n f orm ul a t i ng tha ts e nt e nc e . ( I nde e d, the court ’ s onl y m ent i on of the conspi ra cychar ges w as t o o bserve, qu i t e properl y, that th o s e c h a r g e s m e r g e d i n t o th e C C E c h a r g e . ) We f i n d n o e v i d e n c e th a tth e two c o n s p ir a c y c o n v ic tio n s w e r e u n r e a s o n ab ly r e lie d u p o n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in s e n te n c in g C o p p o laf

o rh is C C E o f

f e n s e . W e ha ve obs e rve d tha tw he n ade f e nda ntr a i s e s ac ol l a t e r a l a tt a c k on a part i cul arse nt ence un der f orm erR ul e 35, on l y thatspec i fi c s ent ence on that s pe c i f i c c ounti s be f

or e the c our t . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R os e n, 764 F . 2d 763, 766 (11th C i r. 19 85 ) ( per c uri am ). In such ca se s, “ [t ] he courthas pow eron l y over w hat i s br oughtbe f

or e i t . ” I d. H e r e , be c aus e no s e nt e nc e w a s e ve ri m pos e d f or C oppol a ’ s c ons pi r a c y c ount s , pe r f or c e hi s R ul e 35( a ) c ha l l e nge m us tbe ba s e d on th e 4 0 - y e a rs e n te n c e th a t w a s im p o s e d f o rh is C C E c o n v ic tio n ; o n ly th a t s p e c if icA sentenc e is illeg al within the meaningof for mer Rule 35(a) if it is: (1) in excess of the 2 statutory maxi mum; (2) imposes multip l e t erms for the same of fense ; or (3) theterms of the sentenc e itself are leg ally

or constitutionally invalid in any other re spect. Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430, 82 S. C t. 468, 472 (1962). 7 s e n te n c e a n d th a t s p e c if ic c o n v ic tio n h a s b e e n b r o u g h t b e f o r e u s . A n d y e t th e r e is nothi ng i n the r e c or d t o s ugge s ttha tthe 40- y e a rs e nt e nc e f orthe C C E c onvi c t i on w a s i n a ny w a y “ i l l e ga l ” a s tha tt e rm ha s be e n c ons true d unde rf orm e rR ul e 35. 2 T he se nt ence di d n otexce ed the st atut ory m axi m um , no r i s there any e vi dence that i ti m p l i c a t e d th e Do u b l e J e o p a r d y C l au s e o f th e C o n s t i tu t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d is c e rn n o b a s is u p o n w h ic h C o p p o la ’s C C E s e n te n c e w o u ld w a rr a n t ac o rr e c tio n . I n s um m a ry , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta c t e d pr ope r l y i n de ny i ng C o p p o la ’s m o tio n to c o rr e c t a n a lle g e d ly ille g a l s e n te n c e u n d e rf o rm e rR u le 3 5 . T he va c a turof

C oppol a ’ s c ons pi r a c y c onvi c t i ons di d notr e qui r e ac onc om i t a nt r e s e nt e nc i ng, a s the r e w a s ne ve ra ny s e nt e nc e i m pos e d i n c onne c t i on w i th the c o n s p ir a c y c h a r g e s . M o r e o v e r , th e 4 0 - y e a rs e n te n c e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id i m po se on C op po l a–w hi ch w as base d sol el y on h i s s epar at e C C E conv i ct i on –w as w i thi n the st atut ory m axi m um and d i d n oti m pl i ca t e C op po l a’ s c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s. T here fore , w e AF F I RM the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of C oppol a ’ s m ot i on.