## I n t he



# U n ited S ta te s C o u r t o f A p p e a ls

F o r th e S e v e n th C ircu it

____________ N o. 07

- 3594 U NI T ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA , P la intif f-A pp ellee , v. T HO M AS M. M C H UGH , D e f e ndan t

- Appe l l ant
.

____________ A pp eal fro m the United S t at es Di stric tC ou rt fo r the W estern Di stric tof Wi sc ons in. No. 07-CR-1 00 -S—

Jo hn C. Sh abaz , Ju dge

.

____________ A RG UE D M AY 6, 2 0 0 8 —D ECI DE D J UNE 12, 2008

____________ Befo re E A S T E R B R OO K , Chi e f Judg e , a nd W OO D a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . E AS T E R B R OO K , Chi e

f Judg e . T ho mas McHu g h pl e a ded g ui l t y t o s t r uc t ur i ngf i na nc i a l t r a ns a c t i o ns t o e v a de cur r en cy - r epo r t i ngrequ irem en ts, see 31 U
. S. C
. §5324 (a)( 3), an d h as be en se n ten c ed to 41 m o n th s’ im p ris on m en t. In o p e n c o u r t , th e d i s t r i c tj u d g e s a i d t ha t h e w o u l d r e c o mm end t o the Bu re au ofPri sons thatM cH ugh “be af f or ded the opport unity t o part i ci pat e i n subst ance abuse ed u c at i on a nd t re at m entp ro gr am s”. The j ud gm enti ncl ud es thi s st at ement : “ The Co ur tr ec o m m en d s t he de f en dan t be a f f or ded th e op port unity t o apply f or subst ance a buse2 N o. 07

- 3594 educat i on a nd tr eat m entpro gr am s whil e co nfi ned w hi ch do no ti nc l ude a n e ar l y r el ease. ” M cHugh ’ s o nl y a r g um en to n a ppea l i s tha tthe l an g ua g e “whi ch d o no ti nc lu d e a n ear l y r el eas e” i s i nconsi st entwith the o ra l stat em en t. A s e n tence p ronou nc ed i n a d efend an t’ s p r e s e n c e p r e v a i l s o ve r a wr i t t e n s e n t e n c e wh e n th e two c on flict. See , e.g., U nited S ta tes v. M a k res , 851 F.2d 10 16 (7th C ir. 1988). W hether the j ud ge’ s o ra l and w ri tte n sent ences conf l i ct i s a n i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n —a n e l a b o r a t i o n d i f f e r s f r o m a c on trad iction

— b u t n ot on e w e n ee d an sw er . I n d ee d , th is ap p ea l d oe s n ot p re se n t an y q u e s tion w ithin “th e jud ici al Power” und er A rt i cl e I I I o fthe Const i t ut i on, bec ause a r e c o mme n d a t i o n d i f f e r s f r o m a j udg me n t
. B e f o r e we proce ed, however , we m ustcl ear up a pro bl em i nt ro duce d b y the di st r i ctc ou rt ’s rec en te f f o r tt o r es o l ve the i ssue. Aft er b o th s i des ’ b r i efs ha d b ee n fi l ed, a nd l es s tha n a m onth bef or e th e dat e s etf or o ra l ar gum ent , M cH ugh ( ac t i ng pro se ) f i l ed i n the di st r i ctc o ur ta mot i o n a sk i ng thatthe phras e “ w hi ch do no ti ncl ud e a n ear l y r el eas e” b e d ele ted . Jud ge Sh a b az , w h o s en ten c ed M c H u gh , i s on m edi cal l eave ; Chie fJ ud ge Crabb gr ant ed the m ot i on i n hi s a bsence

. The dis t ri ctco urtl acke d aut hor i t y t o m ake thi s chang e. First , i n crim inal ca ses d ist rictc ou rt s m ay correct errors o nl y wi thi n s ev en day s o fs en t en ci ng . F ed. R. Cr i m . P. 35( a)

. Chie fJ ud ge Crabb i nvoke d Fed. R . Cri m . P. 36 , w hi ch pro vi des that“cl er i cal ” err or s m ay be cor re ct ed “at any t i m e”, butthe r eco rd does notsho w tha tthi s e rr or was “ cl er i ca l ”. Rul e 36 can not b e us ed t o e nl ar g e the t i me pr o v i de d b y Ru l e 3 5 ( a ) f o r f i xi ng j ud i c i a l g a f f e s. S eeN o. 07

- 3594 3 U nited Sta tes v. B eck er , 36 F.3d 708, 710 ( 7th C ir . 1 994); U ni t e d S t at e s v. D addi no , 5 F.3d 262 , 264–6 5 (7th C ir. 1993). Because nothi ng i n the re cor d i m pli es that t h e cont est ed l anguage w as a dd ed t o the j ud gm entwithoutJ ud ge S ha b a z ’ s k no wl e dg e o r a pp ro va l , R ul e 3 6 do e s n o ta pply

. ( I ti s pos sibl e i n pri n c ip le for a j ud ge t o m ake a “cl er i cal ” m i st ake by t ra nscribi ng hi s ow n d eci si on i ncor re ct l y, butthe r eco rd does notsugg estthatthi s has oc c u rre d .) Se c on d , a d istric t cou rt m ay n ot in terfe re w ith th is cour t ’ s j uri sdic t i on by am ending a deci si on thati s under appell at e r evi ew . “The fi l in g of a no t i ce o fappeal i s a n eve nto fj uri sdic t i onal si gni f i cance— i tco nfe rs j uri sdic t i on on the c ou rt of ap p ea ls a n d d ive sts the d istric t cou rt of its co nt r ol over tho se a spe ct s o fthe c as e i nv o l ve d i n the appeal
. ” Gr i

gg s v . Pr ov i de n t Co n s u merDi s c ou n t Co
. , 45 9 U
. S. 56 , 58 ( 1982 )

. A di st ri c t courtm ay pat ch up cl er i cal er ro rs af f ect i ng o ne as pecto fa case wh i l e a nother aspect i s o n a pp eal

. S ee U nited Sta tes v. M cG ee , 981 F.2d 27 1 (7 th Cir
. 19 92)

. But nei t her M cG ee nor any other op i ni on that w e ha v e b e e n a b l e t o f i nd a l l o ws a di s t r i c t c o ur t t o use Rule 36 t o change the pre ci se f ea ture o fa dispos i t i on th a ti s u n de r ap p e l l a t e r e v i e w. O n l y o n e c o u r ta ta t i me ha s j urisd ict ion over a sub j ect. Ch iefJ ud ge C rabb ap p aren tl y d id n o t recogn ize this p roblem , becau se M cH ug h’s m o t i o n di d no tment i o n that the s ame i ss ue was pe ndi ng on a pp eal and the di st ri ctco urtgr ant ed the m ot i on bef or e the pro secut or co uld fi l e a r esponse . Thir d, nei ther Ch i efJ ud ge Crabb nor thi s cour t i s e nt i t l ed t o change J ud ge Shab az ’s reco m m endat i on t o the Bureau of P ris on s. A rec om m en d atio n d if fer s fro m a j u d gm en t, an d u n d er A rticle II I th at d iffer en c e is fu n d am en tal.4 N o. 07

- 3594 The Fi rs tCongr es s enact ed a s t at ut e di re ct i ng f edera l j ud ges t o re vi ew ve t er ans’ and surv i vor s’ cl ai m s a nd m ake re com m endat i ons t o the S ecr et ar y o fW ar aboutwh ether t he s e c l a i ms s ho ul d b e p a i d. Ch i e fJ us t i c e J a y a nd J ust i ce C u sh in g c on c l u d ed tha t th is law w as u n c on stitu tion al, because the “j ud icia l P ow er o fthe U ni t ed St at es” i s a po wer t o make b i ndi ng de ci si o ns , no tt o make s ug g es t i o ns thatthe Execut i ve Branch m ay acce p t o r rej ect
. S ee H a yb urn ’s C a se , 2 U .S. (2 Dal l

. ) 40 9 ( 1792 )

. The J ust i ces vo lu n tee re d to m ak e r e c om m en d atio n s o u tsid e th eir j ud i ci al capaci t i es, but no one supp ose d then ( or l at er ) that these re com m endat i ons coul d be re viewed by ano ther cour t
. I fm aki ng a re com m endat i on i s no tthe exer ci se of th e j u d i c i a l p o we r , th e n a f f i r mi n g o r r e v e r s i n g s u c h a re com m endat i on o n a p p eal al so i s no tan o ccasi on f or the use of a “j ud ici al” pow er. H a yb urn ’s C a se di d no ts pea k f o r the S upr eme Co ur t( the stat ute w as am en d ed before the full Cou rtcou ld act), butthe deci si on o fthe J ust i ces on ci rcui thas l ong been und er st oo d as a f oundat i on o fA rt i cl e I I I j uri sprudence. Se e, e.g ., Pla ut v. S pen dt hr i f t Fa r m , Inc . , 51 4 U.S
. 21 1, 21 8 (19 95 ); C hi cago & Sout he r n Ai rL i ne s , Inc . v. Wat e r m an Stea m ship C o rp . , 333 U
. S. 103 (1948); U nited Sta tes v. Ferreira , 54 U
. S. 40 ( 1852 )

. I tm eans that , al though a j ud ge m ay t en der a r ec om m en dat i o n t o the Exe cut i ve Br an ch , the re com m endat i on ca nnotbe t re at ed as i fi twere a j ud gm entand re vi ew ed or r evi sed by so m e o ther j ud ge. Ju d ge Sh ab az h ad a c as e o r c on trov er sy — h e h ad to d ec id e w h eth er M c H u gh h ad co m m itted a c r i m e a n d , i f so, wh atpunishm entt o m et e out

— butChie fJ ud ge Crabb d id n o t, a n d n eith er d o w e. It is n o m or e p er m iss ible to am end Judge Shaba z’ s r eco m m endat i on t o the Bureau o f Pri sons than i twould be t o a m en d hi s s t at em ento fr ea-N o. 07

- 3594 5

sons f or the sent ence, j ust t o yi el d a vi ew m or e t o another j ud ge’ s l i ki ng, wh i l e l eavi ng the se nt ence unto uched. That w oul d be a n advi sor y opi ni on. S ee Power e x Corp. v. Re l i ant Ene r gy Se r vi ce s , Inc . , 1 27 S. C t. 2411, 2419 (2007); Le guizam oM edin a v. G o nz a les , 493 F.3d 772 ( 7th C ir. 2007). J ud ge Shaba z g ave the Bureau o fPri sons a s ugges t i o n, wh i c h th e B u r e a u i s f r e e t o a c c e p to r r ej e c t
. I n d o i ng so he d id n ot ex ercise the ju d ici al pow er, and M cH ug h’s re questthatwe re dactthe sugg est ion l i kewis e doe s no t ap p ea l to th e jud icia l p ow er . M c H u g h ’ s la w ye r is fre e to c om m u n ica te w ith th e B u re au of P ris on s o n this su b j ec t, butno A rt i cl e I I I co urtm ay iss u e an advi sor y o pini on changi ng a sugge st i on thatdoes notaf f ectthe se nt ence. M cH ugh cont ends thatU nited Sta tes v . G o nz a les , 76 5 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1985), review ed a distri ct j ud ge’s sugge st i on t o the Bureau o fPri sons, bu t w e d o notr ead G o nz a les s o. G onzal es cont ended t hata re com m endat i on to the B u re au tha t he be p lac ed in a se x -offe n d er trea tm entpro gr am r eve al ed thatthe di st ri ctj ud ge had t ake n i nt o ac c ou n tcer t ai n cont est ed i nfo rm at i on i n the pre

se nt en ce r epo r t , an d ha d i nc r ea se d hi s t er m o fi m p r i so nm ento n the bas i s o fthi s i nfo rm at i on, ev en though by a s t ate m entunder F ed. R. Cri m . P. 32 ( c) ( 3) ( D) the j ud ge ha d di sc l ai m ed an y r el i an ce o n tha t i nf o r m at i o n. ( The su bs ec t i o n i n q ue st i o n i s t o day Rul e 32 ( i ) ( 3) ( B)

. ) The co ur to fa ppea l s t o o k the d is t r i ctj udg e athi s wor d a nd affir m ed . Th e q u es tion be for e th e c o u rt of ap p ea ls in G o nz a les

— w heth er the def endant’ s s ent ence w as t oo l ong— w as w i thi n the j ud i ci al pow er under A rt i cl e I I I
. That a di spu t e ab o utthe v ali d it y o fa j udg m en tmay be e ntan gle d w ith a rec om m e n d a tio n d oe s n ot im p ly th at a re com m endat i on s t anding al one m ay be re vi ew ed or “co rr ect ed” by a cour to fappeal s.6 N o. 07

- 3594 The deci si on o fChie fJ ud ge Crabb dat ed A pri l 23 , 20 08, i s v acat ed. The appeal o therwis e i s di sm iss ed for want of a j ust i ci abl e co nt ro ver sy.

USCA- 02- C- 0072

— 6- 12- 08