2008 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 6-17-2008 

# U SA v . J ohns P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-2522

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . J o hn s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1012. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1012H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas , Seni or U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge fort he D i s t r i ctof * N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NO T PRECEDEN TI 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 os . 07- 2522, 07- 2587
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , A ppel l ant , C r os s - A ppel l ee,

v. SH ELT O N J O H N S, A p p e llee , C ro ss -A p p e llan t.

A p p ea l from the J u d g m en t of the D istri ct C o u rtfo r t h e D istri ct of D elaw are ( D i s t r i ctC our t C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 06- 47) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e G r egor yM
. Sl eet

A r gued M ay15 , 2008 B e f o re : M c K E E , G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges , a nd I RE N A S , Seni orD is t r i ct Judge. * Fi l ed: J une 17, 2008
OP I NI ON

IR E N A S , Seni orU

ni t ed St at es D is t r i ct

Judge.2

T he U ni t ed St at es appea l s t he J udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our t , i m pos i ng upon D efe ndantShel t on J ohns , a s ent ence of 36 m ont hs of i m pr i s onm ent , t hr ee y ear s of
s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , a n d a $ 1 0 0 s p e c i a l a s s e s s me n t . J o h n s c r o s s - a p p e a l s . Be c a u s e we
c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i mp o s e t h e 3 6
- mo n t h s e n t e n c e , we
w i l l vacate and rem and w i t h instruct i on s.

I. W 

### e w rite o n ly

f o r th e p arties, th eref

o re o n ly a b rief recitatio no f

th e relev an t f

acts
andpr oc e dur a lhi s t or

y i s ne c e s s ary . J ohns pl e a de d g ui l ty t o f e l oni n p os s e s s i onof

a fire ar m charges on N ov em

ber 17, 20 06 . The firs t s ente ncing h eari ng was hel d o n M ar ch 23, 2007. Pr i or t o the Mar c h 23 he ar i ng, J ohns s ubm i tt e d as e nt e nc i ng m e m or andum and a rd


### m o tio nf o r a d o w nw ardd ep arture, o r inth e altern ativ e, a d o w nw ardv arian ce inh is
s e nt e nc e . At

the s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng, the di s tr i c t judge fi r s t

a ddr e s s e d J ohns ’ m ot i on, st at ing to the defense, “Iam prepare d to addre ss in fairly si gn ific ant det ai l, the points t hat yo um ad e inyo ur p ap ers. I un d erstan dth em .” (A -3 9 ) T h e co urt w en t o nto d iscu ss sev eral o f Jo h n s’ arg um en ts inf

av o r o f a d o wnw ardd ep arture an dexp lain edw h y it d id
n o t ag ree th at a d ep arture w as w arran ted
. Jo h n s’ atto rn ey

th enb rief

ly arg u edf o r a sen ten ce less th anth e ap p licab le Se nt e nc i ng Gui de l i ne s r ange of 70- 87 m onths of i m pr i s onm e nt , whi l e the gove rnm e nt3



### argu ed fo r a

se ntence within the Guideli nes r ange. T h e d istrict j u d g e co n clu d edth e sen ten cin g h earin g b y o rally p ro n o un cin g Jo h n s’
se ntence : Mr
. J ohns , a ft e r

havi ng pl e d g u ilty

t o Count One of the i ndi c tm e nt , you we r e found gui l ty

of vi ol at i ng Ti t l e 18 of the Uni t e d St at e s Code , Se c t i ons 92 2(g)(1) and 92 4(a) (2). I t is th ere for e the Court ’ s judgm e nt , pur s uant t o the Se nt e nc i ng Re form Ac t of 1984, that

you s ha l l he r e by be c omm i tt e d t o the c us t ody of the Burea

u o f P ri sons fo r a

te rm of 60 m o n ths.
. . . The Co urt has consider ed al l of the fact ors outli ned in T it le 18 Un it ed S ta tes Cod e, S ectio n3 5 5 3 (a), in clu d in g th e S en ten cin g G u id elin es, an df in d s th is sen ten ce to b e ap p ro p riate an dreaso n ab le. . . . Mr
. J ohns , a ft e r

havi ng c ons i de r e d the pr ovi s io n s o f the U. S. Sentenci ng Gu idel ines , the advisory Gu idel ine r ange , t

heSu pre m eCo urt’ s r ul i ng i n Un ited States v. Bo oker , th e sen ten cin g f acto rs o utlin edinT itle 18 of Uni t e d St at e s Code , Se c t i on 3553( a ) , and the unde r lyin g goa l s of se ntenci ng , i ncluding pu nishm ent, dete rr ence , an d rehabil it at ion, I am s e nt e nc i ng you t o a t e rm

of i m pr i s onm e nt , a s I have s a i d, of 60 m onths , or f iv e years. . . . And I i nqui r e of c ouns e l , is th ere an y r e a s on you know of why s e nt e nc e s houl d not

be i m pos e d a s s t at e d? [ B o thco un sel in d icate n o .] It is then the order of the Cou rt that the s ente nce be i m

p osed as s t at e d. Mr. J oh ns youhave th e ri gh t t o app ea l t his s ente nce within ten d ay s. . . . Th e Cle rk’s Of

fice shal l pre pare the ju dg m ent, and m y depu ty cl er k wi l le nt e r the judgm e nt

of c onvi c t i on. (A-61-67 ) The heari ng was r ec es se d sho rt ly ther ea fter
. D esp ite th e d istrict co urt’s statem en ts, a j u d g m en t ref lectin g th e 6 0 -m o n th
sen ten ce w as n ev er en tered . In stead , o nM arch3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , th e d istrict co urt, su a sp o n te ,A docketent r y , dat ed M ar ch 23, 2007, s t at es : “R emar k: U pon fur t hercons i der at i on 1 byt he cour t , J udgm entand C om m i t m entO r derfort he s ent enci ng hel d on 3/ 23/ 07 w as n o t i ssu ed an d re-sen tenc ing o f th e d ef en d an t w as sc h ed u led f o r 4/1 7 /07
. ” H o w ev er, al t hough t he entr ybear s t he dat e of M ar ch 23, 2007, t he entr yal s o i ndi cat es t hati t w as not ent er ed ont o t he docke t unt i l A pr i l 20, 2007. Ind ee d , the f

u ll tr an script of

the h ea ri n g o cc u p ies o n lytw o p ag es. (A -71 -72 ) 2 4 

### i s s ue d a“Not i c e of Re
- Se nt e nc i ng He ar i ng, ” s e tt i ng the r e s e nt e nc i ng for Apr i l17, 2007. 1 

### The r e s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng on Apr i l17 wa s ve ry br i e f. The c ourt

ope ne d the th 2 

### he ar i ng by

s t at i ng, “ the Court

i s not goi ng t o e nt e rt a i n di s c us s i on fr om e i the r the gove rnm e nt

or the de fe ns e . The Court

ha s as hort

s t at e m e nt

i n s upport

of the pos i t i on i t ’ s goi ng t o t ake i n the r e s e nt e nc i ng and that wi l lbe i t . ” ( A- 71) The c ourt c ont i nue d, I have re conv ened the s ente ncing h eari ng in this ca se , b ecause, afte r p r o n o un c i n g s e n t e n c e , i t o c c urr e dt o me th at

I h a dp r o n o un c e dmy sen ten ce w ith o ut g iv in g ef f ect to th e sen tim en ts exp ressed b y M r. Jo h n s, [de fe ns e c ouns e l ], and .
. . J ohns ’ m othe r , dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng. I n othe r w o r d s , I m a d e am i s t ak e i ni m p o s i n g as e n t e n c e o f

6 0 m onths up onMr. J oh ns. Upo n refle ct ing f urther on the is sue, I have deter m ined th at th e a ppr opr i at e s e nt e nc e for

Mr
. J ohns i s 36 m onths , r athe r than the 60 m onths I i m

pos e d dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng. I b eliev e th a t th e sen ten ce o f 3 6 m o n th s m o re ap p ro p riately com po rt s with the un derl ying g oals of se ntenci n g . . . . Moreover, wh en ap p lyin g th e 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs to M r. Jo h n s . . . th e C o urt co n clu d es th at a sen ten ce o f

3 6 m o n th s ad equ ately

ach iev es th o se g o als o f

s e nt e nc in g w h ile taking into ac coun t t

ho se fact ors Ihave ju st

desc ribed earl ie r. T h e C o urt’s sen ten ce . . . ref lects my th o u g h ts reg ard in g th e m o st app r o p r i at e s e n t e n c e , g i v e nth e t o t a l i ty o f th e c i r c um s t an c e s , i n c l udi ng what tr ans pi r e d, and ve ry

i m port ant l y , what

tr ans piredi n thi s c ourtr oom du ri ng you r fir st

se ntenci ng he ar in g. Given you r c omm ents du ri ng that he ar i ng, I e xpe c t

that thi s Court

wi l lne ve r

l ay e ye s on you a ga i n. Good l uc k. ( A- 71- 72)T h e d istric t co u rt’s p o w e r to c o rre c t o r m o d if ya p re v io u slyim p o se d se n ten c e is 3 c o n f e r r e d b y1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) , wh i c h e x p r e s s l yi d e n t i f i e s a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o F e d
. R. Cr i m. P
. 3 5 a s o n e o f

t h r e e i n s t a n c e s wh e n a s e n t e n c e d ma yb e c h a n g e d
. T h e o t h e r t wo i ns t ance s do not appl yt o t hi s cas e. 5 

### On Apr i l20, 2007, the Judgm e nt r e fl e c t i ng the 36- m onth s e nt e nc e wa s e nt e r e d. The part i e s ’ t i m e l y

a ppe a l s fol l owe d.

II
. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is c a s e p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1
. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r b o th 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). U
. S. v. Hig gs , 5 0 4 F
. 3 d 4 5 6 , 4 5 8 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). W e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r q u e s tio n s o f la w . U n itedS ta tes v . H

u ll , 456 F. 3d 1 3 3 , 1 3 7 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ).

II I. 

### Federa l Rule of C ri m inalProcedure 35 p rovides: “( a) Co rr ec ti ng Clear Err or. W i thi n 7 day s a ft e r

s e nt e nc i ng, the c ourt

m ay c orr e c t as e nt e nc e that

r e s ul t e d fr om arith m etical, tech n ical, o r o th er clear erro r. . . . (c) ‘S en ten cin g ’ D ef in ed . A s u sedinth is
ru le, ‘sen ten cin g ’ m ean s th e o ral ann o un cem en t o f th e sen ten ce.” 3 A f ter a th o ro u g h a n a ly sis o f th e h isto rya n d p u rp o se s o f R u le 3 5 , this C o u rt h e ld in Higgs t hat the seve n-dayt i m e l i m i t i s j uri sdi ct i on al , and t hat the d i st ri ct cou rtm ustA s not ed i n Higgs, t hi s C our t i s byno m eans al one i n i t s anal y s i s of t he s even- day 4 l i m i t , as t en ot herC our t s of A ppeal s have he l d t he s ame. 504 F. 3d at462 ( col l ect i ng c a se s); s e e a ls o U. S . v . G r iffin , 524 F. 3d 71, 83 n. 14 ( 1s t C i r . 2008) ( “The cour t s of appea l s have uni for m l yhel d t hatR ul e 35( a) ’ s s even- dayt i m e l i m i t i s j ur i s di ct i onal
. ”) (c o lle c tin g c a s e s ). B eca us e t he t i m e l i m i t i n R ul e 35( a) i s l es s t han el even da y s , t he Satur day s and 5 S u n d a ys i m m e d i a t e l y f

o l l o w i n g M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 ( i
. e . , S a t u r d a y, M a r c h 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 ; S u n d a y, M a rc h 2 5 , 2 0 0 7 ; S a tu rd a y , M a rc h 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 ; an d S u n d a y , A p ril 1 , 2 0 0 7 ) a re n o t co u n ted in th e s e v e n -d a ytim e p e ri o d
. See F ed
. R
. C ri m . P
. 4 5 (a)(2). See 504 F. 3d a t 4 5 9 ( “ Th e Ad v i s o r yCo mmi t t e e n o t e d t h a t t h e ‘ s t r i n g e n t t i me 6 re q u ire m e n t’ o f

se v e n d a y s w a s s h o rte r th a n th e tim e f o r a p p e a lin g th e se n ten c e so th a t if th e c o u rt d id in f

a c t co rre c t th e se n ten c e w ith in th e se v e n d a y s, th e d e f e n d a n t co u ld still ti m elyap p ea l th e se n tenc e if s/he so d esired
. ”). 6 actual l yr es ent ence a def endantw i t hi n t hatt i m e fr ame. 504 F. 3d at459- 60, 463. 4 B eca us e t he di s t r i ctcour t di d not r es ent ence J ohns on or befor e A pr i l 3, 2007, t he di s t r i ct 5
c o u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n to se n ten c e Jo h n s to 3 6 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. T hi s concl us i on i s not al t er ed byt he fa ctt hatt he di s t r i ctcour t i s s ued a N ot i ce of R e se n ten c in g o n M a rc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , b e c a u se , fo r th e re a so n s p re v io u slye x p lain e d in Higgs , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m u s t a c tu a lly re s e n te n c e a d e f e n d a n t w ith in s e v e n d a y s . Higgs 6 hel d t hatdefe ns e couns el ’ s R ul e 35( a) m ot i on, w hi ch w as fi l ed w i t hi n s even da y s of t he
or al pr onouncement of t he fi r s t s ent ence , di d not pr es er ve t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on
un der R ule 35(a)
. 50 4 F
. 3d at 45 9-60. Likew i se, w e con cl ud e t hat the d i st ri ct cou rt ’s s ua sp o n te i s s uance of t he N ot i ce of R es ent enci ng cannotpr es er ve j ur i s di ct i on or s om ehow t ol l t he t i m e forcor r ect i ng a s ent ence . T o hol d ot her w i s e w oul d be t o eff ect i vel yal l ow th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to e n la rg e its o w n ju ri s d ic tio n , w h ic h it m a yn o t d o . See B ow l es v.J ohns r el i es on B ow l es t o ar gue t hatt he s even- dayl i m i t i s pr ocedur al r at hert han 7 j u r i s d i c t i o n a l
. H i s a r g u m e n t , h o w e v e r , i s f o r e c l o s e d b y Higgs , w hi ch r el i ed on B ow l es to h o ld th a t th e lim it is ju ri s d ic tio n a l. See Higgs , 5 0 4 F
. 3 d a t 4 6 4 ( “ Ru l e 3 5 ’ s t i me lim ita tio n d e ri v e s f

ro m th e lim ita tio n s e t f

o rt h b ys ta tu te , 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c ). C f
. B ow l es , 127 S. C t . at2365 ( r ecogni zi ng t hatt he t i m e l i m i t i n Supr eme C our t R ul e 13. 1 der i ves fr om 28 U
. S. C
. § 2101( c) )
. T her efor e, w e hol d t hatt he s even- dayt i m e r equi r ement s et f o rth in R u le 3 5 (a ) is ju risd ictio n a l.”); se e a lso , G riffin , 5 2 4 F .3 d a t 8 4 -8 5 (“ W e th u s jo in t he Thi r d C i r cui t i n hol di ng t hatR ul e 35 i s j ur i s di ct i onal , i n l i ght of bot h E berha rt and B ow l es . ”). W e expr es s no opi ni on as t o w het hert he s ent ence i m pos ed on M ar ch 23, 2007, 8
“ r e s u l t e d f

r o m 

### ar i thm e t i c a l , t e c hni c a l , or othe r c l e ar e rr or ” a s c o n tem p late d b yR u le 3 5 (a). 7 R u ss e ll , 127 S. C t . 2360, 2364 ( 2007) ( “onl yC ongr es s m aydet er m i ne a l ow erfede r al
co u rt ’s su b

ject-m att er jurisdicti o n ”) (interna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion s o m it ted). 7 A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t l acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o r es ent ence J ohns on A pr i l 17, 2007. 8



### I V. For t he r eas ons s t at ed above , t he j udgm entof s ent ence w i l l be vac at ed, and t he
cas e r emanded t o t he di s t r i ctcour t w i t h i ns t r uct i ons t o ent era j udgm entr efl ect i ng t he
s ent ence pr onounced a t t he M ar ch 23, 2007 

### s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng.