[PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS

FOR THE EL EVENTH CIR CUIT

___

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _
No. 1 0-1589 4

___

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _
D.C . Doc ke t No . 2: 07-C R-00 395-R DP-RR A-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AME RIC A,

lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll l Pla int iff - Appe lle e,

ve rsus

JAM ES LER

AY M CINTO SH,

lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll l De fend an t - App el la nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe al from

the Uni te d Sta te s Di stri ct Co urt for the North ern Dist

ric t of Al ab am a

___

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Ja nua ry 7, 2 013)

Be fore DU BINA, Ch ie f Judg e, CA RNE S an d GILM AN, Ci rcui t Ju dge s *

* Honora

ble Ronald L ee G ilman, United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting by desig nation. Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 1 of 31GILMAN , C irc uit Jud ge :

Ja m es Le ray Mc Intos h wa s se nte nc ed to a te rm of 12 0 mon ths of

im priso nm en t, the m an da tory -m ini m um se nte nc e f

or his co nvi ct ion s on a drugtra ffick ing ch arge an d a we ap ons ch arge

. Due to a te ch nic al erro r in the origi na l

ind ic tm en t an d a m ore subs ta nti al m ist ak e by the gove rnm ent in its ha ndl ing of tha t

error, no ind ic tm en t wa s pe ndi ng ag ai nst Mc Intos h at the tim e of his se nte nc ing

.
Thi s ha s ca

use d Mc Intos h to ch al le nge the powe r of the dis tric t co urt to se nte nc e

him at al l. He al so ch al le nge s the le ngt h of his se nte nc e due to the en ac tm en t of

the Fai r Sent en ci ng Ac t of 2010 , Pub. L. 111-22 0, § 2(a), 124 Sta t. 23 72 ( the
FSA), afte r he c om

m itt ed his offen se s bu t be fore h is s en te nc ing

.
Alt houg h we are una

w ar e of any prior ca se wit h a subs ta

nti al ly sim ila

r

fac tua l sc en ari o, we co nc lud e tha t the dis tric t co urt ret aine d the powe r to se nte nc e

McI nto sh, an d tha t the ex erc ise of tha t powe r did not vio la te an y of hi s

co nst itu tio na l right s or run afou l of the Fede ral Ru le s of Cri mina l Proce dure

. The

se nte nc e im

pose d, howe ve r, m

ust be va ca

te d be ca use the co urt did not ap pl y the

U.S

. Sent en ci ng Guid el ine s as revi se d by the FSA. W e the refore AFFIR M the

dis tric t co urt’ s orde rs de ny ing Mc Intos h’ s m oti ons to te rm ina te the pr ocee din gs

an d wit hdra w his gui lty ple a, but we V ACAT E the se nte nc e an d REM AND the

ca se for res en te nc ing c onsi ste nt w ith thi s op ini on.

I. B ACK GRO UND

2 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 2 of 31Mc Intos h wa s ind ic te d in Sept em be r 2007 on one co unt of poss es sin g five

gram s or m ore of cra ck co ca ine wit h the int en t to dis tribute th e dr ug and on one

co unt of ca

rry ing a firea

rm durin g an d in rel at ion to a drug-traf f ic kin g offens e.

The ch arge s aro se f

r om a Nove m

be r 2005 tra ffic sto p durin g whic h an offic er

dis co ve red co ca ine an d a firea rm in Mc Intos h’ s ve hic le

. Bu t the ind ic tm en t

m ist ak en ly

a lle ge d th at

Mc Intos h c om

m itt ed the se offen se s in

Feb ruary 200 7.

The gove rnm en t dis co ve red thi s m ist ak e aft er Mc Intos h ple ad ed gui lty to th e

ch arge d offens es but be fore his se nte nc ing

. To co rrec t the error, the gove rnm en t

obt ai ne d a se co nd in dic tm en t al le gin g the prope r da te of the offens es an d the n file d

a m oti on to dis m iss the origi na l ind ic tm en t wit hout prej udi ce , whic h the dis tr ic t

co urt gran te d. W hy the gove rnm en t ch ose thi s co urse of ac tio n, as op pose d to

sim ply fili ng a supe rse din g ind ic tm en t or rec og niz ing tha t the error wa s m ere ly a

te ch nic al one not requ iring an y co rrec tio n, is a my stery tha t its co unse l co uld not

ex pla in at oral argu

m en t oth er tha

n to ch ara ct erize the ste ps ta ke n as an

“ ove rrea ct ion .” The co nse que nc es of the gove rnm en t’ s m iss te p, howe ve r, ha ve

en ge nde red the hos t of c onst itu tio na l a nd p roce dura l c ha lle nge s se t forth be low.

To be gin wit

h, Mc Intos h en te red a co ndi tio na l gui lt y ple a to the ne w

ind ic tm en t, but r es er ve d his right to ap pe al his co nvi ct ion on doub le -je opa rdy
ground s. Afte r the co urt se nte nc ed Mc Intos h to 120 m ont hs of im priso nm en t, he

tim el y a ppe al ed

.
3 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 3 of 31This co urt ag ree d wit h Mc Intos h tha t the se co nd in di ct m en t vio la te d the

Doub le Je opa

rdy Clau se of the Fifth Am en dm en t. Unit ed Sta te s v. McInt

osh , 580

F.3d 1222 , 1229 (11th Ci r

. 20 09) [here ina fte r McInt osh I ]. It found tha

t je opa rdy

at ta ch ed whe n the dis tric t co urt ac ce pte d Mc Intos h’ s origi na l guilty ple a an d tha t

the ac ce pta

nc e of suc h a ple a on ea ch co unt wa s “ its el f a co nv ic tio n.” Id. at 1228
(inte rnal quot at ion m arks om itt ed ). Be ca use the dis m iss al of th e origi na l

ind ic tm en t, whic h co nta ine d onl y a tec hni ca l error rega rding the da te of the

offens es , “ did not va ca

te the co nvi ct ion s or se t as ide the gui lty ple a, ” id

. , “the

Doub le Je opa

rdy Cl au se prohi bit ed a se co nd prose cu tio n of Mc Intos h for the sa m e

offens es .” Id. at 1229

. This co urt the refore va ca te d the jud gm en t of co nvi ct ion

an d re m an de d th e ca se wit h in struc tio ns t o di sm iss the se co nd i ndi ct m en t. Id.

Onc e the dis tri ct co urt dis m iss ed the se co nd ind ic tm en t, the gove rnm en t

move d to se t a se nte nc ing he ari ng ba se d on the co nvi ct ion s es ta bli she d by

Mc Intos h’ s gui lty ple a to the origi na l ind ic tm en t. The co urt gran te d the mo tio n

ove r Mc Intos h’ s obj ec tio n. McI nto sh the n file d a m oti on to te rm ina te the

proc ee din gs, argu ing tha t the co urt la ck ed juris dict io n to proc ee d to se nte nc ing

ab se nt a pe ndi ng ind ic tm en t an d tha t suc h a se nte nc ing woul d vio la te the Doub le

Je opa rdy Cl au se

. The co urt de nie d the m oti on an d, aft er thi s co urt dis m iss ed

Mc Intos h’ s interl oc uto ry ap pe al for la ck of juris dic tio n, se t the ca se for se nte nc ing

in D ec em be r 2010

.

4 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 4 of 31Mc Intos h al so obj ec te d to his Prese nte nc e Re port in its en ti r et y , m ove d to

wit hdra w his gui lty pl ea , an d argu ed tha t the FSA’s revi se d pe na lty provi sio ns

shou ld be ap pli ed to his se nte nc e. His m oti ons we re de ni ed an d his obj ec tio ns

we re ov er r ul ed

. The co urt the n se nte nc ed him to a 120-m ont h te rm of

im priso nm en t, the m an da tory -m ini m um se nte nc e provi de d by the pre-FSA

Guid el ine s. T his ti m el y

a ppe al foll owe d.

II. ANAL YSIS

A. Standards of r ev ie w

W e revi ew de novo que sti ons co nc erni ng al le ge d vi olati ons of the Doub le

Je opa rdy Cl au se , McInt

osh I , 580 F.3d at 12 26, a dis tric t co urt’ s subj ec t-m at te r juris dic tio n, M

es a Vald er rama v. Unit ed Sta te

s , 417 F.3d 1189 , 1194 (11th Ci r.

2005 ), the suffic ie nc y of an ind ic tm en t, Unit ed Sta te s v. McG ari ty , 669 F.3d 1218,

1232 (11th Ci r. 20 12), an d the le ga l int erpre ta tio n of se nte nc ing sta tut es , Unit ed

Sta te s v. Burg e , 407 F.3d 1183 , 1186 (11th Ci r. 2005 ). The distr ic t co ur t’ s de nia l

of a moti on to w ith draw a gui lty ple a, on the oth er ha nd, is revi ew ed unde r the

ab use -of-disc ret ion sta

nda rd. Unit ed Sta te

s v. Med loc k , 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th

Ci r. 1994 ).

B. Sentenc ing M cI ntosh base d on his guilty ple a t o t h e or ig in al in d ictm ent did not vio late the Do uble J eo pardy Clause

5 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 5 of 31Th e D ou ble Je opa rdy Cl au se of the Fifth Am en dm en t provi de s tha t “ [n]o

pe rson sha ll

. . . be subj ec t for the sa m e offenc e to be twi ce put in je opa rdy of life

or lim b.” U.S. Co nst

. am en d. V. “ Ba se d on the funda m en ta l not ion tha t se ria l

prose cu ti on s by the gove rnm en t are ab usi ve ,” McInt osh I , 580 F.3d at 1227 , the

Cl au se “ prote ct s ag ai nst a se co nd pr ose cu tio n for the sa m e offens e” an d “ prote ct s

ag ai ns t m

ult ipl e puni shm en ts for the sa m e offens e, ” No rth Ca rol ina v. Pe arce ,
395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969). Mc Intos h arg ue s th at pr oc ee din g to se nte nc e him ba se d

on his gui lty ple a to the origi na l indic tm en t, aft er tha t ind ic tm en t wa s dis m iss ed ,

co nst itu te s a se co nd prose cu tio n for the sa m e offens e in vio la tio n of the Doub le

Je opa rdy Cl au se

.
As thi s co urt not ed in McInt osh I , je op ardy at

ta ch ed onc e the dis tric t co urt

unc ondi tio na lly accep te d Mc Intos h’ s gui lty ple a to the origi na l ind ic tm en t. 580

F.3d at 1227 -28. Bu t Mc Intos h co nte nds that the subs eq ue nt dis m iss al of the
origi na l ind ic tm en t te rm ina te d the ca se , m ak ing an y furthe r proc eed in gs in the ca se

a se co nd, an d the reby unc onst itu tio na l, prose cu tio n for the sa m e offense

. His

arg umen t, howe ve r, is dire ct ly at odds wit h thi s co urt’ s co nc lus ion from

McInt osh I tha t the dis m iss al of the origi na l ind ic tmen t did not wit hdra w

Mc Intos h’ s gui lty ple a or va ca te hi s co nvi ct ion

. The co urt not ed tha t Mc Intos h’ s

“ co nvi ct ion sti ll ex ist s an d aw ai ts a se nte nc e, ” id. at 1228 , an d rei te rat ed in the

sum m ary of the hold in g tha t his “ ini tia l co nvi ct ion wa s ne ve r va ca te d,” id. at 1229

.
6 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 6 of 31In short , dis m iss ing the origi na l ind ic tm en t did not te rm ina te the ca se as Mc Intos h

as se rts.

Mc Intos h’ s doub le -je op ar dy argu m en t ult im at el y de pe nds on the propos iti on

tha t the dis m iss al of the origi na l ind ic tm en t, aft er his co nvi ctio n bu t be fore his

se nte nc ing , te rm ina te d the ca se

. Bu t he ci te s no au tho rity to supp ort su ch a

propos iti on. To th e co nt rary , his se nte nc ing wa s the na tura l progre ssi on of a sin gle ,

cont in uo us co urse of je opa rdy

. Be ca

use the origi na l prose cu

tio n did not en d, the

se nte nc ing tha t proc ee de d from th at origi na l prose cu tio n ca nnot be ch ara ct eri ze d as

a se co nd prose cu tio n. Se e Sc hir o v. Farl ey , 510 U.S

. 222, 230 (1994) (refusi ng “ to

tre at the se nte nc ing pha se of a si ng le prose cu tio n as a suc ce ssi ve prose cu tio n for

p u r p o s e s of th e D ou bl e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e ” )

. T h a t t h e g o v e r n me n t

unc onst itu tio na lly pl ac ed Mc Intos h in doub le je opa rdy throu gh the prose cu tio n of

a se co nd ind ic tm en t doe s not tra nsform the first an d onl y se nte nc ing on the or ig in al

ind ic tm en t int o a doub le -je opa rdy probl em

. The se nte nc in g wa s ne ith er a se co nd

prose cu ti on of, nor a se co nd puni shm en t for, the sa m e offens e. Se e Pe arc e , 395

U.S. at 717. As suc h, proc ee din g to se nte nc ing aft er Mc Intos h’ s co nvi ct ion did not

vio la te the Doub le Je opa

rdy Cl au se

.
C. The distr ic t co urt r etai ned juri sdic tion des pite the dism iss ed i ndictm ent

Mc Intos h ne xt argu es “ tha t an ind ic tm en t is a juris dic tio na l pred ic at e an d

prere qui site” f

or pr ose cu tin g a cri m ina l ca se

. He ci te s prec ed en t from the Suprem e

7 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 7 of 31Co urt an d lowe r co urts tha t spe ak to the ne ce ssi ty of a va lid ind ic tm en t as a

prere qui sit e to a fede ral co ur t’s ex ercis e of juris dic tio n. Se e, e. g. , Ex part e Bain ,
121 U.S. 1, 13 (1887) ( ho ld in g tha t a co urt ha s no juris dic tio n ove r an offens e not

prope rly pres en te d by an ind ic tm en t), ov er rul ed by Unit

ed Sta te s v. Co tto n , 535

U.S. 625 (2002); Ex part e W ils on , 114 U.S. 417, 429 (1885) (hold ing tha t the

dis tric t co urt ex cee de d its juris dic tio n by hol din g a de fend an t to an swe r for a cri m e

an d se nte nc ing him wit

hout an ind ic tm en t); Unit ed Sta te s v. Moor e , 37 F.3d 169,

173 (5th Ci r. 1994 ) (“ [T]he la ck of an ind ic tm en t in a fede ral fel ony ca se is a

de fec t goin g to the juris dic tio n of the co urt.” ) (inte rnal quot at ion m arks om itt ed ).

Re ly ing on the se ca se s, Mc Intos h co nte nds tha t the dis tric t co urt la ck ed
juris dic tio n to se nte nc e him in the a bse nc e of a n in dic tm en t.

Co ntra ry to Mc Intos h’ s posi tio n, a de fecti ve ind ic tm en t doe s not de prive a

co urt of juris dic tio n. Co tto n , 535 U.S. at 631 (“ Insofa r as it he ld tha t a de fec tiv e

ind ic tm en t de prive s a co urt of juris dict io n, [ Ex part e ] Bain is ove rrule d.” ). The

ind ic tment at iss ue in Co tto n , a drug-c onsp ira cy ca se , wa s de fec tiv e be ca use it

fai le d to al le ge the qua

nti ty of drugs r eq uire d for the en ha nc ed sta tut ory pe na lti es

tha t the dis tric t co ur t ult im at el y im pose d (an error rec ogni ze d in Appr en di v. Ne w

Je rse y , 530 U.S. 466 (2000)). Co tt on , 53 5 U .S. at 628, 632. Alt houg h the Co tto n

de fend an ts fai le d to rai se thi s argu m en t in th e di stri ct co urt, the Unit ed Sta te s Co urt

of A ppe al s for the Fourth Ci rcui t none the le ss va ca te d the ir se nte nc es be ca

use it

8 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 8 of 31held tha t the dis tric t co urt wa s “ wit hout juris dic tio n to im

pose a se nte nc e for an

offens e not ch arge d in the ind ic tm en t.” Id. at 62 9 (el lip sis , em pha sis , an d int erna l

quot at ion m arks om itt ed ).

Th e S uprem e Co urt reve rse d, not ing tha t Bain ’s an al y sis of ind ic tm ent

de fec ts in te rm s of juris dic tio n w as ba sed on an “ el as tic co nc ep t of juris dic tio n
[tha t] is not wha t the te rm ‘j urisd ic tio n’ m ea ns tod ay .” Id

. at 630. Ju r isdic tio n as it

is unde rstoo d tod ay

—m ea nin g “ the co urts’ sta

tut ory or co nst itu tio na l po wer to

ad jud ic at e the ca se ”— ca

nnot be wa ive d, but a cri m ina l de fend an t m ay wa ive his or

he r r ig ht to an ind ic tm en t unde r Ru le 7(b) of the Fede ral Ru le s of Cri m ina l

Proce dure

. Id. (inte rnal quot at ion m arks om itt ed ) (em pha sis in origi na l)

. Be ca use

the Appr en di de fec t in the Co tto n ind ic tm en t did not im pli ca te juris dict ion , the

S up r em e Co urt he ld tha t the de fend an ts’ se nte nc es , whic h the gove rnm en t

co nc ed ed we re the resu lt of pl ai n error, co uld be va ca te d onl y if the error “ affe ct ed

subs ta nti al right s” an d “ the fai rnes s, in te grity , or publ ic repu ta tio n of jud ic ia l

proc ee din gs.” Se e id. a t 63 2-33 (bra ck et s a nd i nte rnal quo ta tio n m arks om itt ed ).

Mc Intos h at

te m pts to di st in guish Co tto n on two ground s: (1) unl ike the

Co tto n de fend an ts, he first rai se d his de fec tiv e-i ndi ct ment argu m en t in the dis tric t

co urt; an d (2) th e Cotto n de fend an ts ch al le nge d an ind ic tm en t wit h an Appr en di

error, whe rea s he ch al le nge s the co m ple te la ck of an ind ic tm en t at th e ti me of his

se nte nc in g. We be lie ve tha t Mc Intos h’ s first dis tin ct ion is irrel ev an t to the

9 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 9 of 31Suprem e Co urt’ s de te rm ina tio n th at ind ic tm en t de fec ts do not im pli ca te a co urt’ s juris dic tio n. The nonj urisd ic tio na l na ture of the ind ic tm en t’s defec t, in oth er
words, woul d not ch an ge rega rdle ss of whe the r the Co tto n de fend an ts ha d first

rai se d the ir Appr en di argu m en t in the dis tric t co urt. All tha t w ou ld ch an ge woul d

be the sta nda rd of revi ew on ap pe al

. Se e McC oy v. Unit

ed Sta te s , 266 F.3d 1245 ,
1249 (11th Ci r. 2001 ) (noti ng tha t the sta nda rd of revi ew to be ap pl ie d to
Appr en di -bas ed

a rgum en ts d ep en ds o n th e tim ing of th e obj ec tio n).

The se co nd dis tin ct ion pres en ts a m ore co m pli ca te d iss ue be ca

use thi s co urt

ha s ex pla ine d tha t “ ind ic tm en t errors are not al l the sa m e” an d sho ul d not be

tre at ed ca te goric al ly

. Se e id. at 1253

. S ome in dictm en ts are de fec tiv e be ca use

the y ch arge no fede ral cri m e at al l, suc h as the ind ic tm en t tha t ch arge d co nspi rac ie s

“ to at te m pt” to im port an d to poss es s m ari jua na w it h th e int en t to dis tribu te the
drug in Unit ed Sta te

s v. Mea ch am , 626 F.2d 503, 507 (5th Ci r. 1980 ), of f en ses not

se t forth in the U ni te d Sta te s Co de

. In co ntra st, an ind ic tm en t wit h an Appr en di

de fec t “ sti ll ch arge s a

c om ple te fed era l offe nse .” Id.

The form er defec t de prive d the dis tric t co urt of juris dic tio n—n ot be ca use the

ind ic tm en t wa s de fec tiv e, but be ca use Co ngre ss’ s gran t of juris dic tio n to the

dis tric t co urts in cri m ina l ca se s ex te nds onl y to “ offens es ag ai nst the la ws of the

Unit ed Sta te s.” Se e 18 U.S.C

. § 3231

. If an ind ic tm en t fai ls to ch arge suc h an

offens e, the n a co urt ha s no ba si s f or ex erc isi ng juris dic tio n. Se e Unit ed Sta te s v.

10 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 10 of 31Pe te r , 310 F.3d 709, 713-14 (11th Ci r. 2002 ) (exp la ini ng tha t Co tto n did not upset

the rule of Mea ch am tha

t an ind ic tm en t’ s fai lure to de sc ribe co nduc t prosc ribe d by

a fede ral sta

tut e is a juris dic tio na l de fect ) ; co nt ra Unit ed Sta te s v. Vaug

hn , 694

F.3d 1141 , 11 47

- 49 (10th Ci r. 2012 ) (reje ct ing Pe te r ’s an al y sis an d rel y ing on

Co tt on to hol d tha t the fai lure to sta te an offens e in an ind ic tm en t is no t a juris dic tio na l de fec t).

The force of Mc Intosh’ s juris dic tio na l ch al le nge turns on whe the r the dis tric t

co urt’ s ac tio n in se nte nc ing him w it hout a pe ndi ng ind ic tm en t is ak in to the de fec t

at iss ue in Mea ch am , whe re the ind ic tm en t ne ve r sta te d a f ed er al offens e. If the

two sit ua tio ns we re to be de em ed su f f icie ntl y sim ila

r, the n the dis tric t co urt wa s

wit hout juris dic tio n to se nte nc e Mc Intos h. Bu t the diffe renc e be twe en the pres en t

ca se an d a Mea ch am -sty le de fec t is bot h cl ea r an d m at eri al : Mc Intos h wa s ch arge d

an d co nvi ct ed on an ind ic tm en t tha t he co nc ed es wa s va lid

. I n M ea cham , as in

Pe te r , the de fen da nt s pl ea de d gui lty to ind ic tm en ts al le gin g co nduc t tha t did not

co nst itu te fede ral crimina l offens es

. Be ca use the co nduc t al le ge d in bot h ca se s

“ w as ou ts ide the swe ep of the ch argi ng sta tut e, ” Pe te r , 310 F.3d at 714,
juris dic tio n wa s ne ve r prope rly es ta bli she d. But Mc Intos h, lik e the Co tto n

de fend an ts, ple ad ed gui lty to an ind ic tm en t tha t al le ge d an es ta bli she d offens e

ag ai nst the Unit ed Sta te s, th ere by prope rly inv oki ng the dis tric t co urt’ s juris dic tio n

unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3 231.

11

Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 11 of 31Mc Intos h ove rlook s thi s ke y dis tin ct ion in argu ing tha t an indic tm en t m

ust

be pres en t in a ca se thro ug h se nt en ci ng for the dis tric t co urt to m ai nta in
juris dic tio n. His arg umen t, howe ve r, ca nnot be squa

red wit h thi s co urt’ s

unde rsta ndi ng of Co tto n as ex pla ine d in Pe te r

. Se e 310 F.3d at 713-14 (noti ng tha t

Co tto n rej ec te d the vie w tha t al l ind ic tm en t de fec ts are juri sd ic ti onal). The hol din g

of Co tto n m ak es cl ea

r tha t juris dic tio n is not inh ere ntl y tie d to ind ic tm en ts. Se e

535 U.S. at 631. Ra

the r, juris dic tio n de pe nds on sta tin g “ off en se s agai nst the la

ws

of the Uni te d Sta te s.” 18 U.S.C . § 3 231.

An ind ic tm en t’ s rel at ion shi p to juris dic tio n is thu s ba se d on whe the r it

al le ge s co nduc t co nst itu tin g a fede ral offens e, not on som e int rinsi c va lue of an

ind ic tm en t as suc h. This unde rsta ndi ng of juris dic tio n ex

pla ins why a de f

en da nt

ca n wa ive an ind ic tm en t an d co nse nt to proc ee d by in f orm at ion ; i.e ., the co urt

ma int ai ns juris dic tio n so lon g as the inform at ion al le ge s a fede ral off en se

. Se e

Fed. R. Cri m . P. 7(b).

W ith juris dic tio n free d from an y ne cess ar y tie to an ind ic tm en t, we loo k in

the pres en t ca se for whe the r som et hin g oth er tha

n the origi na l ind ic tm en t al le ge d

or es ta bli she d an offens e ag ai nst the Unit ed Sta te s pr io r to the origi na l ind ic tm en t

be ing dis m iss ed

. This wa s cl ea rly the sit

ua tio n he re be ca

use Mc Intos h’ s

co nv ic ti on oc cu r r ed be f or e th e dis m iss al of the ind ic tm en t. I f an

ind ic tm en t—w hi ch is a gran d jury ’s findi ng of prob abl e ca use tha t the al le ge d

12 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 12 of 31cri m ina l offense ac tua lly too k pla ce —i s suffic ie nt to sta te a fede ral offens e an d

the reby inv oke a co ur t’s ju risdi ct ion , the n al l the m ore so m ust a co nvi ct ion tha t

co nc lus iv el

y es tab lis he

s suc h an offens e. Mc Intos h’ s co nvi ct ion , m oreo ve r, wa s

ba se d on a guilty ple a to a va lid ind ic tm en t tha t al le ge d a fede ral offens e, an d the

co nvi ct ion rem ai ne d in effe ct de spi te the dis m iss al of the in di ct ment. McInt osh I ,
580 F.3d at 1228

. The dis tric t co urt thu s ret ai ne d juris dic tio n ove r the case

throu gh s en te nc ing

.
D. The Fifth Am endm ent does not re quire that an indic tm ent be in

ex iste nce at the ti m e of se ntenci ng
Ha vin g de te rm ine d tha t the dis tric t co urt ha d juris dic tio n to se nte nc e

Mc Intos h, we ne xt turn to the que sti on of whe the r tha t se nte nc ing vio la te d his

co nst itu tio na l right s un de r the Fifth Am en dm en t’ s Gran d Jury Cl au se

. Tha t cl au se provi de s tha t “ [n] o pe rson sha ll be he ld to an swe r f or a capi ta l, or oth erwi se

infa m ous cri m e, unl es s on a pres en tm en t or ind ic tm en t of a Gran d Ju r y.” U.S.

Co nst

. am en d. V. Mc Intos h argu es tha t the dis tric t co urt’ s se nte nc ing orde r w as

co ntra ry to th e Cl au se’ s pla in la ngua ge be ca

use it “ he ld [him ] to an swe r” for a

fel ony —a n “ infa m ous cri m e” —wi tho ut an out sta ndi ng ind ic tm en t. Se e Fed. R.

Cri m

. P. 7(a) ad

vis ory co m

m itt ee ’s not e (“ An infa m ous cri m e ha s be en de f in ed as

a cri m e puni sha

ble by

. . . impr is on m en t in a pe nit en tia ry .” ). Bu t we are

un pe rsua de d by his co nte nti on tha t the ac t of se nte nc ing follo wing a va lid

13 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 13 of 31co nvi ct ion co nst itu te s be ing “ he ld to an swe r” for purpos es of the Cl au se ’s

ind ic tm en t re qui rem en t.

Alt houg h Mc Intos h doe s not spe ll out his argu m en t in m uc h de ta il, its ba sic

prem ise is tha t the Gran d Jury Cl au se use s the phra se “ an swe r fo r” in the se nse of

“ to suffe r th e co nse que nc es of.” This is ad m itt ed ly one de finit ion of the te rm

“ a n s w e r f o r ” f o u n d i n t h e O x f o r d E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y (http :// www.oe d.c om

/vi ew /Ent ry /81 46 (la st vis ite d De c. 21, 2012 )). A ccep ting

thi s de finit ion woul d produc e a pla usi ble int erpre ta

tio n of the Gran d Ju r y Cl au se ;

i.e ., tha t a pe r son ca

nnot be he ld to suffe r the co nse que nc es of co m m itt ing a fel ony

wit hout an ind ic tm en t. Ce rta inly a se nte nc ing woul d qua lify as a poi nt at whic h a

pe rson i s he ld t o su ffer suc h c onse que nc es

.
Bu t thi s is ne ith er the onl y nor ev en the m ost pla usi ble de finit ion of “ an swe r

for” wit hin the co nte xt of the Gran d Jury Cl ause

. “ Answe r” al so m ea ns “ to spe ak

in repl y or oppo si ti on to a ch arge ,” id. , a m ea nin g rec ogni ze d at the tim e of the

Fifth Am en dm en t’ s ad opt ion an d rat ific at ion

. Se e Thom as S he r idan, A Co mple te

Dic tio nary of the Engl ish Langua ge (6 th ed

. 1796) (defi nin g “ an swe r” as “ [t] ha t

whic h is sa id in ret

urn; co nfuta

tio n” ); 1 Sam

ue l John so n, A Dic tio nary of the
Engl ish Langu age (5th ed . 177 3) (“ A c onfut at ion of a c ha rge. ”).

This la tte r se nse of the phra se “ an swer f or ” is r efl ec te d in the Fede ral Ru le s

of Crimin al P roce dure ’s requ ire m en ts tha t an ind ic tm en t is a ne ce ssa ry (unle ss

14 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 14 of 31wa ive d) prere qui sit e to the prose cu tio n of ca se s an d m ust be f il ed prior to an

ar r ai gn ment , the poi nt at whic h a de fend an t is as ke d to repl y to a ch arge by wa y of

a ple a. Se e Fed. R. Cri m

. P. 7(a) (requi ring prose cu tio n by ind ic tm en t); id

.
ad vis ory co m

m itt ee ’s not e (exp la ini ng th at Ru le 7(a) “ giv es effe ct to the [Grand
Jury Cl au se ]” ); Fed. R. Cri m

. P. 10 ( a) (requi ring tha t a de fend an t ha ve a co py of

the ind ic tm en t or inform atio n be f or e as kin g him or he r to ple ad ). Sim ply put , the

Gran d Jury Cl au se requ ire s tha t an indic tmen t be in pla ce be fore a pe rson ca n be

he ld to repl y to a ch arge

. Se e Ex part e W ils on , 114 U.S. 417, 426 (188 5) ( ho ld in g

tha t the Gran d Jury Cl au se m an da te s tha t a pe rson “sha ll no t be put upon his tria l”

wit hout the be ne fit o f an

ind ic tm en t).

The rem ai ning qu es tio n is whe the r the Gran d Jury Cl au se em brac es bot

h

m ea nin gs of “ an swe r for,” suc h tha t an ind ic tm en t m ust be in pla ce bot

h whe n a

de fend an t ple ad s to a ch ar ge an d whe n he or she “ suffe rs the co nse que nc es of” tha t

ch arge

. In the ab se nc e of an y cl ea r in di cat io n from the te xt al one rega rding thi s

iss ue , we turn to t

he und erl y ing purpo se s of t he right to an ind ic tm en t.

This co ur t ha s ide nti fie d thre e uni que func tio ns se rved by an ind ic tm en t:
(1) to en sure tha

t the de f en da nt ha s ad eq

ua te not ic e of the ch arge s ag ai nst him or

he r as the Sixth Am en dm en t requ ire s; (2) to “ pres erve [] th e de f en da nt’ s right to be

accuse d by his fel low ci tiz en s” upon a findi ng of proba ble ca use ; an d (3) to prote ct

the de fend an t ag ai nst doub le je opa rdy

. Se e Unit

ed Sta te s v. Fe rn , 155 F.3d 1318 ,
15 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 15 of 311324 -25 (11th Ci r. 1998 ); United St at es v. Jo hnso n , 713 F.2d 633, 643 (11th Ci r.

1983 ). Mc Intos h ha s not sugg es te d an y oth er func tio ns that ar e served by an

ind ic tm en t.

He ha s al so fai le d to show how an y of the se thre e func tio ns are rel ev an t at

the se nte nc ing pha se of a cri m ina l ca se

. I nd eed , Mc Intos h rec ei ve d al l of the

be ne fits of his origi na l ind ic tm en t— not ic e, a pr oba

ble -ca use findi ng by a gran d
jury , an d prote ct ion from doub le je opar dy— pr io r to his se nte nc ing

. Onc e a va lid

co nvi ct ion is obt ai ne d, the ind ic tm en t as a sta nd-a lon e ins trum en t no lon ge r se rves

an y of th es e func tio ns.

A co nvict io n, in fac t, m ee ts or ex ce ed s ea ch of the ide nti fie d ind ic tm en t

func tio ns: (1) it not ifie s the de fend an t of the na ture of the ch arge for whic h he wa s

ac cu se d (and co nvi ct ed ); (2) it sig nifie s a le ga l co nc lus io n, rea ch ed ei the r by ple a

or by a jury ’s findi ng of gui lt be y ond a rea sona ble doub t, th at th e de fend an t

co m m itt ed the offens e; an d (3) it preclu des a se co nd prose cu tio n or puni shm en t for

the sa m e offens e. The ind ic tm en t no long er ha s a spe ci fic role in a ca se ’s post

co nvi ct ion pha se

. In sum , in te r pr et ing the phra se “ an swe r for” to inc lud e the

se nte nc ing pha se of a cri m ina l ca se is inc ongruous w ith the purpos es of an

ind ic tm en t be ca

use tho se purpos es are ne ce ssa rily fulfille d at the poi nt of a va lid

co nvi ct ion

.

16

Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 16 of 31W e al so not e tha t ou r int erpre tin g the phra se “ an swe r for” in the Gran d Jury

Cl au se as focu sin g on the gui lt-de te rmin at io n pha se of a cri m ina l prose cu tio n

rat he r tha n on the se nte nc ing ph as e is co nsi ste nt wit h the la ngua ge use d by the

thre e stat es that inc lud ed gran d-jury cl au se s in the ir propos ed am en dm en ts to the

Unit ed Sta te s Co nst itu tio n in 1788

. Se e 4 W ay ne R. La Fave et al ., Cr imi nal

Proc ed ure § 15 .1(b) (3d ed

. 2000 ) (des cri bin g the propos ed gran d-jury cl au se s of

Ma ssa chus et

ts, Ne w Ha m

pshi re, an d Ne w York). The Ma ssa ch use tts an d Ne w

Ha m pshi re propos al s woul d ha ve m an date d tha t no pe rson be trie d for a cri m e

wit hout fir st be ing ind ic te d by a gran d jury

. Id

. (ci tin g 2 Be rnard Schw art z, The

Bil l of Righ ts: A Doc ume nta ry H is tor y , 677, 761 (1971)). Ne w York’ s propos al
provi de d tha t an “ [i] ndi ct m en t by a [g ]r an d [

j] ury ough t to be obse rved as a

ne ce ssa ry pre lim ina

ry to the tria l.” Sch wa rtz , supr a , a t 91 2.

The la ngua ge ultimat el y ad opt ed in the Fifth Am en dm en t cl ose ly tra ck ed the

North Ca rolin a De cl ara

tio n of Ri ght s, se e La Fave et al ., supr a , at § 15.1 (b), whic h

sim ila rly requ ire d an ind ic tm en t be fore a “ free m an sha ll be pu t to an swe r an y

cri m ina l ch arge .” Schw art z, supr a , at 287. Bl ac kst one ’s co m m enta r ies al so use d

the “ put to an swe r” phra sin g to de sc r ib e th e r eq uire m en t of an ind ic tm en t be fore an

arra ign m en t. La Fave et al., supr a , at § 15.1 (b). None of the se sourc es , al l of

whic h we re co nte m

pora ry to the ad opt ion of the Fifth Am en dm en t, sugg es ts tha t

the la ngua ge of the Gran d Jury Cl au se woul d ex te nd the requ ire m en t of an

17 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 17 of 31in di ct me nt to the se nte nc ing pha se of a cri m ina l proc ee din g. Cf

. Dist ric t of

Co lumb ia v. He lle r , 554 U.S. 570, 634-35 (2008) (noti ng tha t “ [c] onst itu tio na l
right s ar e en shrin ed wit

h the sc ope the y we re unde rstoo d to ha ve whe n the pe opl e

ad opt ed the m ”).

In sum , the phra se “ an swe r for” in the Gran d Jury Cl au se , as pr ope rly

unde rstoo d in the co nte xt of the Cl au se ’s purpos es , doe s no t su pp or t the

int erpre ta tio n tha t Mc Intos h ad voc at es. We the refore co nc lud e tha t the dis tric t

co urt’ s se nte nc ing did not vio late Mc Intos h’ s co nst itu tio na l right s unde r the Fifth

Am en dm en t.

E. The se ntenci ng did not violate ei ther Rule 7(a) or Rule 12(b)(3)(B) of the Fe der al R ule s of Cr im inal Pr oc edur e

1. Rul

e 7(a)

Mc Intos h ne xt co nte nds tha t his be ing se nte nced wit hout an ind ic tm en t

vio la te d Ru le 7(a) of the Fede ral Ru le s of Cri m ina l Proce dure , whic h r eq ui r es tha t

ca pit al an d fel ony offens es be “ prose cu te d by an ind ic tm en t.” The Rule , howe ve r,

sim ply giv es ef

f ect to the Fifth Am en dm en t’ s Gran d Jury Cl au se

. Fed. R. Cri m

. P.
7(a) ad vi so ry co m

m itt ee ’s not e. So to the ex te nt tha t Mc Intos h argu es tha t his

se ntenci ng vi ola te d Ru le 7(a) in ex ac tly the sa m e m an ne r tha t it al le ge dly vio la te d

the Gran d Jury Cl au se , the argu m en t is forec los ed by the an al y sis in Part I I

. D

.
ab ove

.

18

Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 18 of 31Mc Intos h al so argu es , however , tha t the gove rnm en t wa s “ prose cu tin g” him

wit hout an ind ic tm en t at the se nte nc ing pha se of his ca se

. Bu t he offers no

au tho rity to supp ort the propos iti on tha t Ru le 7(a)’ s use of the te rm “ prose cu te d”

ex te nds an y grea

te r prote ct ion to fede ral de fend an ts tha n tha t provi de d by the

Gran d Jury Cl au se

. Give n the Ru le ’s int ende d pu r pose of giv ing effe ct to tha t

Cl au se , we de cl ine to ex

pa nd the sc ope of its ind ic tm en t r eq ui r ement ba se d sol el y

on the qu es ti ona

ble as se rtion tha t the te rm “ prose cu te d” ex te nds to the

gove rnm en t’ s post -con vic tio n m oti on to proc ee d to se nte nc ing

. W e the refore

co nc lud e tha t t

he dis tric t c ourt’ s se nte nc ing orde r did not vio la te Ru le 7(a ).

2. Rul

e 12(b)(3)(B)

Mc Intos h al so file d a m oti on to te rm ina te the proc ee din gs in his ca se unde r

Ru le 12(b)(3)(B) of the Fede ral Ru le s of Cri m ina l Proce dure, whic h co nc erns

m oti ons al le gin g de fec ts in ind ic tm en ts. The rule provi de s in rel ev an t pa rt as

follo ws: (3) Mot ion s Tha

t Mus t Be Ma de Befo r e Tr ia l. The follo wing m ust be rai se d be fore t

ria l:

. . . . (B) a m oti on al le gin g a de fec t in the ind ic tm en t or inform at ion —bu t at an y tim e whil e the ca se is pe ndi ng, the co urt m ay he ar a cl ai m tha t the ind ic tm en t or inform at ion fai ls to inv oke the co urt’ s juris dic tio n or to s ta te a n offe nse ; . .

. .

19 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 19 of 31Ru le 12(b)(3) requir es m ost m oti ons tha t al le ge a de fec t in an ind ic tm en t to

be m ad e be fore tria l. Bu t the Ru le al lows m oti on s alle gin g the fai lure to inv oke the

co urt’ s juris dic tion or to sta te an offens e to be brough t at an y tim e whil e the ca se is

pe ndi ng. The na ture of the al le ge d de fec t the refore de te rm ine s whe the r the

ch al le nge m

ust be broug ht p rior to tria l.

Be ca use Mc Intos h file d his Ru le 12(b)(3)(B) m oti on aft er he wa s co nv ic ted,

he m ust show tha t his ind ic tm en t ei the r fai le d to inv oke the co ur t’s ju risdi ct ion or

fai le d to sta

te a fede ral off

en se

. He argu es , qui te sim ply , tha t a dis m iss ed

ind ic tm en t fails in bot

h res pe ct s. Bu t thi s argu m en t res ts on the faul ty prem ise tha t

Ru le 12(b)(3)(B) requ ire s that an ind ic tm en t be in pla ce at al l tim es whil e the ca se is p en din g.

Mc Intos h co nfla te s the ti me at whic h a de fend an t m ay ch al le nge the se two

ty pe s of ind ic tm en t de fec ts— tha t is, an y tim e w hi le th e ca se is pe ndi ng— wit h the

tim e at w hi ch a va li d ind ic tm en t m ust be in pla ce

. W e find thi s rea din g of the Ru le

to be inc onsi ste nt wit

h the lon gst an din g an d, to our know le dge , unc ontr ov erted

unde rsta ndi ng of an in di ct

m en t’ s func tio ns, al l of whic h we re fulfil le d we ll be fore

Mc Intos h’ s se nte nc ing

.
Alt houg h a Ru le 12 ( b) (3)(B) cl ai m rega rding the la ck of juris dic tio n or the

fai lure to state an of

f en se m ay be brough t at an y tim e durin g the ca se , the de fec t in

the in di ctm en t m

ust ha ve ex ist ed prior to the co nvi ct ion be ca use , as ex pla ine d in

20 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 20 of 31Part II.D. ab ove , ind ic tm en ts se rve no func tio n aft er a va lid jud gm en t of co nvi ct ion

is en te red. An ind ic tm en t de fec t tha t ex ist s onl y aft er a co nvi ctio n is , at m ost , a

te ch nic al de fec t be ca

use it ha s no be ari ng on the subs ta nti ve fai rnes s of the

co nvi ct ion

or th e proc es s by

whi ch it wa s ob ta ine d.

A sta rk diffe renc e the refore ex ist s be twe en the ty pe of de f

ects tha t Ru le
12(b)( 3)(B) al lows to be ch al le nge d at an y tim e an d the te ch nic al de fec t al lege d by

Mc Intos h. An in di ctm en t tha t fai ls to inv oke a co urt’ s juris dic tio n or to sta te an

offens e (and we ha ve se riou s do ubts aft er Co tto n tha t an ind ic tm en t ca n fai l to

inv oke juris dic tio n oth er tha n by fai lin g to sta

te an offens e) ne ce ssa

rily unde rm ine s

the va lid ity of a co nvi ct ion

. The de fend an ts in Unit ed St ate s v. Mea ch am , 626

F.2d 50 3 (5th Ci r. 1980 ), for ex am ple , ple ad ed gui lty to an ind ic tm en t tha t al le ge d

co nduc t tha t wa s not a fede ral offens e. Ru le 12(b)(3)(B) woul d al low the m to

ch al le nge the ir ind ic tm en ts aft er the ir gui lty ple as be ca use the fai lure to st at e an

offens e inv al ida te d the ir co nvi ct ion s. One sim ply ca nnot be co nvi ct ed by ple ad ing
gui lty to co nduc t tha t is no t a cri m e. Unit ed Sta te s v. Pe te r , 310 F.3d 709, 712-13
(11th Ci r. 2002 ) ( ho ld in g tha t the fai lure to sta

te an offens e is an error so

funda m en ta l tha

t it cann ot be w aive d by a gui lty ple a an d wa rrant s a writ of error

co ram nob is).

In co ntra st, the re is no dis put e tha t th e origi na l ind ic tm en t ag ai nst Mc Intos h

sta te d an offens e an d tha t his co nvi ct ion wa s va lid

. Furthe rm ore, thi s co urt ha s

21 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 21 of 31al rea dy he ld th at th e post -con vic tio n dis m iss al of the ind ic tm en t ag ai nst him did

not affe ct his co nvi ct ion

. McInt osh I , 580 F.3d at 1228

. So Mc In to sh is se ek ing to

use a proc ed

ural rule to cre at e a subs ta nti ve right tha t we ha

ve co nc lud ed doe s not

ex ist —t he r ig ht to a pe ndi ng ind ic tm en t at the se nte nc ing pha se of a ca se

. W e

de cl ine to rea d R

ule 12(b)(3)(B) a s c rea tin g su ch a right

.
E. Sentenc ing in the abse n ce of a pending indic tm ent did not im plic ate the prope r se para tion of power s

Mc Intos h ne xt co nte nds tha t the dis tric t co urt’ s proc ee din g to se nte nc e him

in the ab se nc e of a pe ndi ng ind ic tm en t ha d “the prac tic al im port an d effe ct of

. . .
al te r[ing] the se pa

rat ion of powe rs doc trine .” He argu es that the co urt effe ct ive ly

usurp ed the ex ec uti ve bran ch ’s powe r to de ci de whe the r to ab an don a prose cu tio n.

We ce rta inl y rec ogni ze tha t “ co urts are not to int erfe re wit h the free ex erc ise of th e

dis cre tio na

ry powe rs of the at

torne y s of the Unit ed Sta te s in the ir co ntrol ove r

cri m ina l prose cu

tio ns.” Unit ed Sta te

s v. Co x , 34 2 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Ci r. 1965 ).

Bu t we f ai l to se e how gran tin g the gove rnm en t’ s m oti on to se t Mc Intos h’ s ca se for

se nte nc ing int erfe red wit

h th at dis cre tio na

ry e xe cu tiv e powe r.

O nc e ag ai n, Mc Intos h’ s argu m en t res ts on a fla we d prem ise : tha t the dis tri ct

co urt pr oc ee de d to se nte nc ing aft er the gove rnm en t ha d “ une qui voc al ly

ab an do ned” the prose cu tio n. To the co ntra ry , the gove rnm en t’ s m oti on to dis m iss

the origi na l ind ic tm en t wit hout prej udi ce did not end th e cas e be ca use the co urt did

22 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 22 of 31not va ca

te the co nvi ct ion or se t as ide the gui lty pl ea. Se e McInt osh I , 580 F.3d at

1228

. Nor did th e go vernm en t oth erwi se sig na l an ab an donm en t of the

prose cu tio n; it soug ht onl y to co rrec t a te ch ni cal er ror in the ind ic tm en t. And at no poi nt did the gove rnm en t sugg es t tha t it wish ed to ab an don Mc Intos h’ s

pr os ecut ion

. By m ovi ng to se t Mc Intos h’ s ca se for se nte nc ing , the gove r nmen t

obvi ousl y int en de d ju st t

he opp osi te

.
Mc Intos h al so sugg es ts a num be r of hy pot he tic al sc en ari os tha t are meant to

de monst rat e the pa

rade of horribl es tha t woul d al le ge dly follo w if we al low dis tr ic t

co urts to proc ee d to se nte nc ing aft er the gove rnm en t ha s dis m iss ed the rel ev an t

ind ic tm en t. For ex am

ple , McI ntosh posi ts tha t a prose cu tor who m ak es a post

co nvi ct ion dis co ve ry that the ke y wit ne ss in a ca se ga ve pe rjure d te sti m ony co uld

m ove to dis m iss the ind ic tm en t, but the dis tric t co urt co uld unj ust ly proc ee d to

se nte nc e the de f

en da nt even aft er gran tin g the prose cu tor’ s m oti on. Of co urse , in

thi s ex am ple (like in ea ch hy

pot he tic al tha t Mc Intos h sugg es ts) th e posi tio n of the

prose cu tor, unl ike the gove rnm en t’ s posi tio n in the pres en t cas e, is that the ca se

sho ul d be te rm ina te d. The obvi ous res pons e to the se sc en ari os is tha t the

gove rnm en t ret ai ns the powe r to une qui voc al ly te rm ina te ca se s post -con vic tio n by

m ovi ng to va ca

te the co nvi ct ion s, in ad dit ion to dis m iss ing the rel ev an t in di ctm en t.

Noth ing in our rulin g en croa ch es upon the ex ec uti ve ’s powe r to ex erc ise its

dis cre tio n to e nd p rose cu

tio ns.

23 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 23 of 31F. Th e distr ic t co urt did not abuse its disc re tion in denying M cI ntosh’ s

m otion to withdraw his guil ty ple a

W e ne xt turn to Mc Intos h’ s m oti on to wit hdra w his gui lty ple a, whic h he

file d prior to se nte nc ing

. A de fend an t is al lowe d to wit hdra w a ple a if he “ ca

n

show a f ai r and jus t rea son for requ es tin g the wit hdra wa l.” Fed. R. Cri m

. P. 11(d).

The fai lure of an ind ic tm en t to ch arge an offens e is a f ai r and jus t rea son to pe rm it

suc h a wit

hdra wa l. Unit ed Sta te

s v. Be ll , 22 F.3d 274, 276 (11th Ci r. 1994 ). Bu t

we ha ve al rea dy conc lu de d tha t the post -con vic tio n dis m iss al of Mc Intos h’ s origina l ind ic tm en t is not the eq uiv al en t of a de fec tiv e ind ic tm en t tha t ne ve r sta te d

an offens e. The key dis tin ct ion is tha t Mc Intos h ha d the be ne fit of a va lid

ind ic tm en t whe n he en te r ed his gui lty ple a, an d the subs eq ue nt dis m iss al of tha t

ind ic tm en t provi de s no ca use to al low the wit

hdra wa l of his ple a. W e thu s

co nc lud e tha t the dis tric t co urt did not ab use its dis cre tio n in de ny ing Mc I nt os h’ s

m oti on.

G. The distr ic t co urt had the pow er to se ntence M cI ntosh base d on his

co nvic tion

Mc Intos h ne xt argu es tha t, to the de gree tha t the dis tric t co urt ha d an y

au tho rity to proc ee d to se nte nc ing , the ind ic tm en t ci rcum sc ribe d the sc ope of the

se nte nc e tha t co uld be im po se d. A nd since no ind ic tm en t wa s pe ndi ng at the tim e

Mc Intos h wa s se nte nc ed , the co urt al le ge dly ha d no powe r to im pose an y

subs ta nti ve se nte nc e. This argu m en t is no m ore than a r es ta tem en t of the

24 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 24 of 31ju risdi ct ion al argu m en t tha t we ha ve al rea dy rej ec te d. Furthe rm ore, se nte nc es ar e

ba se d on co nvi ct ion s, not ind ic tm en ts, be cau se only the form er es ta bli she s tha t a

de fend an t “ ha s be en f

ou nd gui lty of an offens e” an d thu s “ sha ll be se nte nc ed .” Se e

18 U. S.C. § 35 51.

To be sure , an indic tmen t m ust al le ge the es se nti al el em en ts of a cri m e,

inc lud ing an y fac t (othe r tha n the fac t of a prior co nvi ct ion ) tha t coul d in crea se the

pe na lty for a cri m e be y ond the pres cri be d sta tut ory m ax im

um

. Appr en di v. Ne w

Je rsey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Bu t thi s rule doe s not tra nsl at e int o a

requ ire m en t tha t a co urt’ s se nte nc e m ust be ba se d on an in dictm en t pe ndi ng at the

tim e of se nte nc ing rath er tha n on a co nvi ct ion

. The co nne ct ion be twe en an

ind ic tmen t an d a se nte nc e is sol el y throu gh the co nvi ct ion ; i.e ., a co urt im pose s a

se nte nc e ba se d on the co nvi ct ion , an d the co nvi ct ion reflects th e al le ga tio ns of the

ind ic tm en t. In the pres ent cas e, the co urt se nte nc ed Mc Intos h ba se d on his

co nvi ct ion , whic h in turn wa s ba se d on a va lid ind ic tm en t tha t sta te d two se pa

rat e

fede ral offens es

. The dis tric t co urt wa s we ll wit hin its powe r in im

posi ng the

se nte nc e tha t i t di d.

H. M cI ntosh should have bee n se nt en ced w ith the bene fit of the Fair Sentenc ing Ac t
Fina lly , Mc Intos h prote st s th e le ngt h of his se nte nc e. His se nte nc e of 120

mon th s of inc arc era tio n refle ct ed the sta tut ory m an da tory m ini m um s for his

offens es as th ey ex ist ed prior to the Fai r Sent en ci ng Ac t of 2010 , Pub. L. No. 111-
25 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 25 of 3122 0, § 2(a), 124 Sta t. 2372 (the FSA). The FSA rai se d the rel ev an t thre shol d

poss es sio n am ount s for cra ck co ca ine , su ch th at the ap proxi m at el y 20 gram s of

cra ck co ca ine tha

t Mc Intos h poss es se d wit h the int en t to dis tribu te w oul d now not
trigg er a m an da tory m ini m um se nte nc e. Co mpar e 21 U.S.C

. § 841 (2009)
(provid ing a five -gram thre shol d for trigg eri ng a five -y ea r m an da tory m in im

um

se nte nc e), wi th 21 U.S.C

. § 841 (2011) (provid ing a 28-gra m thre shol d for the

sa m e five -y ea

r m an da tory

m ini m um se nte nc e).

Be ca use McI ntosh co m

m itt ed his offens es be fore the FSA’s effe ct ive da te

on Augu st 3, 20 10, the dis tric t co urt de te rm ine d tha t the pre-FSA ve rsion of § 841

ap pli ed , ev en tho ugh the se nt en ci ng too k pla ce aft er the FSA’s effe ct ive da te

. This

wa s ini tia lly the gove rnm en t’ s posi tio n on ap pe al as we ll. Bu t the gove rnm en t

ab an done d tha t posi tio n in a Jul y 27, 2011 le tte r to thi s co ur t, ex pla ini ng tha t the

Att orne y Ge ne ral ha d rece nt ly an noun ce d a ch an ge in the De pa rtm en t of Jus tic e’ s posi tio n on thi s se nte nc ing iss ue

. Cons is te nt wit h thi s co urt’ s opi nio n in Unit ed

Sta te s v. Roja s , 645 F

. 3d 12 34 (11th Ci r. 2011 ), the Att orne y Ge ne ral de te rm ine d

tha t the FSA’s revi se d pe na lt ie s ap ply to de fend an ts se nte nc ed aft er the FSA’s

effe ct ive da te , ev en if the ir of f en se s occu

rred prior to tha t da te

. Se e als o Dors ey v.

Unit ed Sta te

s , 132 S. Ct

. 23 21 , 23 35 (2012) (hold ing tha t the FSA’s m ore le nie nt

pe na lti es “ ap ply

to the pos t-Ac t se nte nc ing of pre -Act offen de rs” ).

26 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 26 of 31We th er efore ag ree wit h bot h Mc Intos h an d the gove rnm en t tha t Mc Intos h

shou ld be res en te nc ed in acc orda nc e wit h the FSA’s revi se d pe na lty provi sio ns.

The c as e wil l be rem an de d for th is p urpos e.

III . CO NCL USIO N

For al l of the rea sons se t forth ab ove , we AFFIR M the dis tric t co urt’ s or de rs

de ny ing Mc Intos h’ s m oti ons to te rm ina te the pr ocee din gs an d wit hdra w his gui lty
ple a, but we V ACAT E th e se nte nc e an d REM AND the ca se for res en te nc ing

co nsi ste nt w ith

thi s op ini on.

27 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 27 of 31CAR

NES, C irc uit

Jud ge , c onc urring:

I co nc ur in the Co urt’ s de ci sio n tha t in lig ht of Dorse y v. Unit ed Sta te s, 132

S.Ct

. 2321 , 2335 (2012), Mc Intos h is en tit le d to be res ente nc ed under the Fai r

Sent en ci ng A ct of 20 10, Pub. L. No. 111-22 0, 124 Sta t. 2372 , an d I joi n tha t pa rt

of it s op ini on.

I al so co ncur in th e de ci sio n tha t Mc Intos h’ s co nvi ct ion is due to be

affirm ed , al tho ugh I arri ve at th at de sti na tio n by a diffe rent route tha n the one the

Co urt ta ke s. In the first ap pe al of thi s ca se , we co nc lud ed tha t the dis trict co ur t

erred whe n it de nie d Mc Intos h’ s m oti on to dis m iss the se co nd ind ic tm en t on

Doub le Je opa

rdy ground s. Unit ed Sta tes v. McI ntosh, 580 F.3d 1222 (11th Ci r.

2009 ). A ne ce ssa

ry an d ex pli ci tly sta

te d prem ise of that co nc lu sio n wa s tha t ev en

tho ugh the ind ic tm en t ha d be en dis m iss ed , the first co nvi ct ion ha d not be en

va ca te d an d dis m iss ed ; it sti ll ex ist ed

. Id

. at 12 28. W e ex pla ine d tha t “ Mc Intos h

ha s no t ye t be en se nte nc ed ba se d on his ple a of gui lt in the first ca se , but his

co nvi ct ion sti ll ex is ts an d aw ai ts a se nte nc e. ” Id. Tha t is the rea son we ga ve for

our de ci sio n tha t Mc Intos h’ s co nvi ct ion for the sa m e cri m e unde r the se co nd

ind ic tm en t vio la te d the Doub le Je opa rdy Cl au se

. See id. at 1229 ( “McIntos h’ s

ini tia l co nvi ct ion wa s ne ve r va ca te d, an d the Doub le Je opa rdy Cl au se prohi bit ed a

se co nd p rose cu

tio n of M cInt osh for the sa m e offens es .” )

28 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 28 of 31Our hol din g in the first ap pe al that McI nto sh rem ai ne d co nvi ct ed unde r, an d

st il l co uld be se nte nc ed ba se d on, the first ind ic tm en t is inc onsi ste nt wit h al l of

Mc Intos h’ s co nte nti ons in thi s ap pe al

. This ap pe al of the jud gmen t tha t the dis tric t

co urt en te red on rem an d ari se s from the dis tric t co urt doi ng ex act ly wha t we

ins truc te d it to do: se nte nc e McI nto sh ba se d on the first ind ic tm en t ev en tho ugh

tha t ind ictm en t ha d be en dis m iss ed

. Be ca use our opi nio n in the first ap pe al wa s publ ish ed , we are boun d by the prior pa ne l prec ed en t rule to follo w the hol din gs of

tha t de ci sio n. See Schi av o ex r el

. S ch in dle r v. Schi av o, 403 F.3d 1289 , 1292 (11th

Ci r. 2005 ) (“ Be ca

use our pr ev iou s de ci sio n wa s publ ish ed , the prior pa ne l

prec ed en t rul e al so a

ppl ie s to a ny

hol din gs re ac he d in

the e arl ie r ap pe al .” ).

W e are al so boun d by the la w of the ca se doc trine to follo w our hol din gs in

th e f ir st ap pe al

. See Nore lus v. De nny 's, Inc. , 628 F.3d 1270 , 1288 (11th Ci r

.
2010 ); Bu

rger King Co rp. v. P il gr im 's Pride Co rp., 15 F.3d 166, 169 (11th Ci r.

1994 ) (“ As we ha ve r ep eat ed ly rec ogni ze d, findi ngs of fac t an d co nc lus ion s of la w by an ap pe lla

te co urt are ge ne ral ly bin din g in al l subs eq ue nt proc ee din gs in the

sa m e ca se in the tria l or on a la te r ap pe al .” ) (inte rnal quot at ion m arks om itt ed ) ; id.
(“ [B] ind ing pr eced ent m ak es cl ea r tha t the la

w of the ca se en co m

pa sse s al l thi ngs

de ci de d by ne ce ssa

ry im pli ca tio n as w ell as tho se de ci de d ex pli ci tly .” ) (inte rnal

quot at ion m ar ks an d em pha sis om itt ed ); AIG Ba ke r Ste rling He igh ts, LLC v.

Am eri ca n Mul ti-C ine m a, In c. , 57 9 F.3d 1268 , 1270 –71 (11th Ci r. 2009 ) (sa m e).

29 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 29 of 31“ The ex ce pti ons to the la w of the ca se doc trine are (1) the pres en ta tio n of ne w

ev ide nc e, or (2) an int erve nin g ch an ge in co ntrol lin g la w, or (3) tha t the ap pe lla te

de ci sio n is cl ea

rly errone ous an d woul d res ult in m an ife st inj ust ic e if

im ple m ente d. ” Unit ed Sta te s v. W ill ia m s, 563 F.3d 1239 , 1242 (11th Ci r. 2009 ).

None of tho se ex ce pti ons ap pl ies he re. No ev ide nc e wa s pres en te d on rem an d.

The re ha s be en no ch an ge in co ntrol lin g la w. Our de ci sio n in the first ap pe al wa s

not cl ea rly errone ous, as the dis cu ssi on of the Doub le Je opa rdy iss ue in the Co urt’ s opi nio n in thi s ap pe al (whic h is not ground ed in the prior prec ed en t rule or th e la w

of the ca se doc trine ) de m onst rat es. And Mc Intos h wa s se nte nc ed for drug an d

firea rm cri m es tha t he ad

mi ts he co m

m itt ed

. The re is no inj ust ic e in tha t, m an ife st

or oth erwi se

. 1

1 An intere sting leg al issue would ar ise if the cle ar e rror and manife st injust ice e x ception
to the law of the case doctrine w ere applicable in this case. I f that exception applied, it might clash with the prior

prec edent r

ule, which ha s no exception for cle ar e rror . See Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1303 ( 11th Cir. 2001) (“The idea of an exception to the prior pa nel prec edent r

ule wher e a subse quent pane l is convinced the pr ior one re ache d the wrong result—for w hateve r re ason—is also inconsistent with a number of decisions in which pane ls of this Court have obediently followed prior

panel pr ece dents they

wer e convinc ed we re w rong .”); Cohen v. Off

ice De pot, I nc., 204 F .3d 1069, 1076 (11th Cir.2000) (“ Even if we thought L indsey wrong , the prior pa

nel pre cede nt rule is not depende nt upon a subsequent pa nel’s appr aisal of the initial decision’s corr ectne ss. Nor is the oper ation of the rule depende nt upon the skill of the attorney s or wisdom of the judg es involved with the prior de cision—upon what wa s arg ued or considere d. Unless and until the holding of a prior de cision is overruled by the Supreme Court or by the en ba nc cour t, that holding is the law of this Ci rcuit re g ardle ss of what mig ht have happene d had other

arg uments been ma de to the pane l that decided the issue first.”). Would the clea r er ror a nd manifest injustice exception to the law of the case doctrine trump the pr ior pane l prec edent r

ule, or doe s that exception ex tend no furthe r than the la w of the c ase doc trine of which it is a part, lea

ving the prior pre cede nt master of a ll to which its t erms apply ? As fasc inating a s that question is, we nee d not answer it in thi s case beca

use no exception to the law
30 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 30 of 31of the c ase doc trine does a pply

. 31 Case: 10-15894 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 31 of 31