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 3-23-2009 

# U SA v . Leon S alb 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 . 08-3678

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 a nova . 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 l l a nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . L e on S alb " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1709. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1709AL D- 1 1 8 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL 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- 3678

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . LE ON SALB ,

A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 91- cr - 00003) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M au ri ce B . C o h il l, Jr.

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

February26, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S A N D J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: M ar ch 23, 2009 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antL eon Sal b, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al o f h is m o tio n to c o rre c t h is s e n ten c e . F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill su m m a rily a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.O n A u g u st 2 7 , 1 9 9 2 , S a lb w a s c o n v icte d o f o n e c o u n t o f

c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te coca i ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and 21 U . S. C . § 846( 9) . H i s convi ct i on w as bas ed on conduc toccurr i ng betw een 1978 a nd A ugus t1988. H e w as s ent ence d byt he U nit ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the W est ern D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a t o 3 65 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm ent , t o be fol l ow ed bya 5- y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. H i s convi ct i on and s e n te n c e w e re a f

f ir m e d o n a p p e a l. S e e C .A . N o . 9 2 -3 1 7 9 (3 d C ir . F e b . 2 , 1 9 9 3 ). F oll ow i ng nu m erous un successful 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 an d o t her post -convict i on m oti on s, o n Ja n u a ry1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , S a lb f iled a m o tio n in th e D istric t C o u rt e n tit led “ P e tit io n e r’s (O ld L aw ) R ul e 35( a) M ot i on t o C or r ectI l l egal Sent ence . ” I n i t , he cl ai m ed thathe w as s ent ence d underan amended s ect i on of the A nt i - D rug A bus e A ctw hi ch w enti nt o eff ect on N ovember18, 1988. B eca us e the amendm ent s t ook eff ectaft ert he end da t e of the c o n sp ira c y , h e a lleg e d th a t h is s e n ten c e w a s illeg a l an d a m o u n ted to a n e x p o st f a c to vi ol at i on. A p p ell an t r eli ed o n a f

o rm er v ersion o f F ed era l R u le of C ri m inal P roc ed u re 3 5 (a), w h ich p ro v id e d : “T h e c o u rt m a yc o rre c t an ill e g a l se n ten c e a t an ytim e a n d m a yc o rre c t a s ent ence i m pos ed i n an i l l egal m annerw i t hi n t he t i m e pr ovi ded her ei n fort he r educt i on of s ent ence . ” The D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatt he ver s i on of the rul e r el i ed on byA ppel l ant appl i es onl yw hen al l conductr el at ed t o t he cons pi r acyoccurr ed pr i ort o N ovember1, 1987, w hen the rul e w as agai n amended. B eca us e A ppel l antw as convi ct ed of e ngagi ng i n a cons pi r acys panni ng fr om 1978 unt i l A ugus t1988, t he C our thel d t hatA ppel l ant co u ld n o t t ak e a d v an tage o f th at ve rsi o n o f th e ru le an d instead ap p li ed the s tand ardp ro v id e d in c u rre n t R u le 3 5 (a ): “ W ith in 7 d a y s a f ter se n ten c in g , the c o u rt m a yc o rre c t a sent ence thatres ult ed from ari t hm et i cal , t echn i cal , or other cl ear error . ” B ecause A ppel l antcl ear l ym i s s ed the s even- dayt i m e per i od, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o adj udi cat e A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. H i ggs , 504 F. 3d 456, 464 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . I n t he al t ernat i ve, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatA ppel l ant ’ s under l y i ng cl ai m w as w i t houtm er i t . A ppel l antappea l ed and f i l ed an i nfor m al br i ef. I n r es pons e, t he G overnm entfi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance . W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. T he D i s t r i ct C our tconcl uded thatA ppel l antcoul d notavai l hi m s el f of f or m erR ul e 35( a) , beca us e the ru le w a s a m e n d e d d u rin g th e p e n d e n c yo f th e c o n sp ira c y , an d th a t itlac k e d ju risd ictio n to adj udi cat e hi s m ot i on undert he curr entver s i on of R ul e 35( a) . W e have neveraddr es s ed t he ques t i on of w hi ch ver s i on of R ul e 35 governs a cons pi r acyi ni t i at ed bef or e N ovember 1, 1987, butendi ng t her eaf t er . A tl eas tone otherC i r cui thas hel d t hati n s uch a c as e, t he ver s i on of the rul e i n eff ectatt he t i m e of s ent enci ng appl i es . See U ni t ed St at es v. R i ver a, 3 7 6 F .3 d 8 6 , 9 2 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). W e n e e d n o t d e c id e a t th is tim e w h ich v e rsio n a p p lies to a “ stra d d lin g ” c o n sp ira c yb e c a u se A p p e llan t’s u n d e rly in g c laim h a s b e e n p re v io u sly det erm i ned byt hi s C our tt o be w i t houtm er i t . I n a 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on fi l ed by A ppel l anti n J anuary1994, he r ai s ed thi s s ame cl ai m . H i s m ot i on w as deni ed byt he D istri ct C o u rtan d , in a m em o ran d u m o p inion , this C o u rtaf firm ed , co n clud ing that S alb’s s ent enci ng ar gum entw as “of l i t t l e mom entbeca us e i ti s cl eart hathe w as s ent ence d under t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes and notundert he pena l t ypr ovi s i ons of § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) . ” SeeC . A . N o. 94 -3405 (3d C i r. Jul y13 , 19 94 ). A pp el l ant m ayno tuse a R ule 35 m oti on as a

m e a n s o f re litig a tin g a c la im p re v io u s ly ra is e d b e f o re a n d d e c id e d b yth is C o u rt . B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e conc l ude thatt hi s appea l pr es ent s no “s ubs t ant i al q u esti o n , ” a n d w il l sum m aril yaf firm the ju d g m en t of

the D istri ct C o u rt . S ee 3 d C ir . L A R 27. 4 & I . O . P. 10. 6.