NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 11a0300n.06 No. 08-3422 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. L ECADI O L EON, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF OH I O

Be fore : SUHRHEI

NRI CH, MOORE, and COOK, Circ uit J udg es. COOK, Circuit J udg e. When L eca dio L eon, an undocumented immigra nt, pleade d guilty to
one coca ine-c onspiracy char g e, the district court imposed a conditional sentenc e. L eon rec eived 108 months’ imprisonm en t , b u t the court noted that it would reduc e his sentenc e to 87 months if he submitt ed voluntary -depor tation documents within two wee ks and if the g overnme nt ag ree d to the downwar d depar

ture.
L eon eventua lly rec eived the lower sent en ce , b u t not without some confusion. One wee k afte r the sentenc ing hear ing, the court issued a written judgme nt that impo s ed t h e 108-month sentenc e but made no mention of the conditional reduc tion. Two day s later, and within the two-we ek period that the court aff

orded him, L eon submitt ed the requisite immigration paper work. The next day , howeve r, the court rec eived the g overnme nt’s motion opposi n g any further sentenc ingNo. 08-3422

United States v. Leon
redu ct i o n . The dist rict court never acte d on the gover nment’s m otion, and neither party appea led the judgme nt. Yet thirty -three months later, the court, citing L eo n ’s earlier submissi on of the immigration documents, reduc ed his sentenc e to 87 months’ imprisonment.
On appea l, the g overnme nt contends that the district co u rt l acked jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 to enter the sentenc e-r eduction order , and that the court’s orig inal judgme nt imposed
an invalid co nditional sentenc e. Be cause we ag ree , we vacate both the order reduc ing L eon’s sentenc e and the orig inal judgme nt and re mand for r esente ncing
. I
. A court may modify an imposed term of impri s o n m en t o n l y in the limit ed circ umstances descr ibed i n 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) , one of these being “to t h e ex tent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Fe dera l Rules of Criminal Proc edure .” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (1)( B)
. The parties ag ree , howeve r, that Rule 35 does not authorize the order reduc ing L eon’s sentenc e. And since neither party cites a statute that “other wise expressly permits” the reduc tion, nothing in § 3582(c) supports the court’ s sentence -re duction order
. L eon never

theless arg

ues that the court appropr iately reduc ed his sentenc e beca use the order
mere ly attempted to impose his orig inal, conditional sentenc e. Six th Circuit case law questions the validity of conditional sentenc es. See United States v. Garcia , 312 F. App’x 801, 807 (6th Cir. 2009) (p er curiam) (“[T]he leg al validity of a conditional sentenc e is not a fore g one conclusion, in t h i s
- 2 -No. 08-3422

United States v. Leon
circ uit or elsewhe re.” ). But “to the extent conditional sentenc ing [i s] acc eptable,” the sentenc e must be prec ise and unequivoca l, and “the fulfillment of the condit i o n m u s t rest within ‘the persona l control of the defe ndant and not some independe nt third party or entity .’” Id. (quoting United States v. Martin , 913 F.2d 1172, 1176 ( 6th Cir. 1990)).
The conditional sentenc e that the district court imposed here hinge d on one condition not within L eon’s control—the g overnme nt’s consent. See Martin , 913 F.2d at 1176. As a result, even if conditional sentenc in g gen er al l y is proper , this one fails to satisfy the persona l-control require ment.
I I
. Be cause the parties conce de Rule 35’s inapplicability , and beca use the district court’s initial sentenc e fails to satisfy the require ments o f a valid conditional sentenc e, we VACATE both the order reduc ing L eon’ s sentenc e to 87 months’ imprisonment and the judgme nt imposing a 108- month sentence and REMAND for r esente ncing
. See G arcia , 312 F. App’ x at 809.

- 3 -