Document: 128 S. Ct. 2559 (2008) Michael GREENLAW, aka Mikey, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. No. 07-330. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 15, 2008. Decided June 23, *2561 Deanne E. Maynard, for respondent in support reversal. Jay T. Jorgensen, as amicus curiae, appointed by this court, Washington, DC, the judgment below. *2562 Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General, Counsel Record, Department Justice, D.C., Thomas C. Goldstein, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP, Kassius O. Benson, Law Offices Minneapolis, MN, Kevin K. Russell, Amy Howe, Howe P.C., Bethesda, MD, Pamela Karlan, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford School, Litigation Clinic, Stanford, CA, petitioner. Justice GINSBURG delivered opinion Court. This case concerns role courts our adversarial system. The specific question presented: May a States Appeals, acting on its own initiative, order an increase defendant's sentence? Petitioner J. Greenlaw was convicted various offenses relating to drugs and firearms, sentenced imprisonment 442 months. He appealed urging, inter alia, that his sentence unreasonably long. After rejecting all Greenlaw's arguments, Appeals determined, without Government invitation, applicable law plainly required prison 15 years longer than term trial court had imposed. Accordingly, appeals instructed 622 We hold that, absent appeal or cross-appeal, received should not have been increased. therefore vacate Appeals' judgment. I member gang years, controlled sale crack cocaine southside Minneapolis neighborhood. See Carter, 481 F.3d 601, 604 (C.A.8 2007) (case below). To protect their drug stash prevent rival dealers from moving into territory, members carried concealed numerous weapons. id., at 605. For part operation, charged, District Minnesota, with eight offenses; after trial, he found guilty seven charges. App. Pet. Cert. 16a-17a. Among convictions were two violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), which prohibits carrying firearm during relation crime violence trafficking crime: His first 924(c) conviction connection committed 1998; second, both discharging 1999. 17a. A carries mandatory minimum 5 if is simply carried. 924(c)(1)(A)(i). If also discharged, increases 10 years. 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). "a second subsequent conviction," however, whether weapon only discharged well, jumps 25 924(c)(1)(C)(i). Any 924(c), moreover, must run consecutively "any other imprisonment," including any under 924(c). 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). At sentencing, made error. Over Government's objection, held does count "second subsequent" when it "charged same *2563 indictment" conviction. 59, 61-62. error plain because held, Deal States, 508 U.S. 129, 113 1993, 124 Ed. 2d 44 (1993), defendant charged indictment more one offense qualifying punishment rank subsequent," see 132-137, 1993. As determined Court, included 262 months (without separately counting sentences ran concurrently) offense, imposed 5-year accord conviction, rejected request 25-year prescribed 924(c)(1)(C) instead, 10-year 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) first-time offenses.[1] total thus calculated came Eighth Circuit, appropriate crimes F.3d, 607. no merit arguments. Id., 606-607. Although did 608, note, brief oral argument, Court's error: observed, called (not 10-year) consecutive sentence. observation too short counter argument 84-86; Recording Oral Arg. 05-3391, (CA8, Sept. 26, 2006), 16:53-19:04, available http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/oralargs/oaFrame.html (as visited 13, 2008). Having refrained seeking correction pursuing appeal, urged be affirmed. acknowledged Government, while objecting sentencing court's erroneous reading 924(c)(1)(C), elected seek appellate alteration 608. Relying "plain-error rule" stated Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 52(b), discretion raise correct initiative. 608-609. vacated "to impose [statutorily mandated] years." 611. Petitioning rehearing en banc, asked Circuit adopt position advanced Seventh Rivera, 411 864 (2005). 95. "By deciding take cross-appeal," stated, "the has ensured [the defendant's] cannot increased." 867. denied opinion. 28a. On remand, *2564 increased yielding 103-104, 109. petitioned certiorari noting division among Circuits question: When unsuccessfully challenges high, may appeals, cross-appeal Government? In response, "agree[d] [Greenlaw] erred sua sponte remanding directions enhance petitioner's sentence." Brief Opposition 12. granted review invited Jorgensen argue case, 552 ___, 829, 169 625 (2008). Mr. accepted appointment well fulfilled assigned responsibility. II adversary system, civil criminal cases, instance we follow principle party presentation. That is, rely parties frame issues decision assign neutral arbiter matters present. extent approved departures presentation justification usually pro se litigant's rights. Castro 540 375, 381-383, 786, 157 778 (2003).[2] But general rule, "[o]ur system designed around premise know what best them, are responsible advancing facts arguments entitling them relief." 386, 786 (SCALIA, J., concurring judgment).[3] cogently explained: "[Courts] do not, sally forth each day looking wrongs right. wait cases come us, they normally decide questions presented parties. almost always great deal about do, particularly true counsel richest, most powerful, represented litigant appear before us." Samuels, 808 F.2d 1298, 1301 1987) (R. Arnold, denial reh'g banc). pivotal informed by, illustrative of, principle. Under unwritten but longstanding alter benefit nonappealing party. earliest recognized takes justify remedy favor appellee. McDonough Dannery, 3 Dall. 188, 198, 1 563 (1796). rule "inveterate certain." Morley Constr. Co. Maryland Casualty Co., 300 185, 191, 57 325, 81 593 (1937). *2565 Courts disagreed, proper characterization rule: Is "jurisdictional," exceptionless, "rule practice," potentially subject judicially created exceptions? Compare, e.g., Johnson Teamsters Local 559, 102 21, 28-29 (C.A.1 1996) (cross-appeal "is jurisdictional"), with, American Roll-On Roll-Off Carrier, LLC P O Ports Baltimore, Inc., 479 288, 295-296 (C.A.4 ("cross-appeal requirement [is] practice, [not] strict jurisdictional requirement"). Our opinions contain statements supporting characterizations. U.S., 187, 325 defines "[t]he power modify decree" (emphasis added)), Langnes Green, 282 531, 538, 51 243, 75 520 (1931) practice generally followed"). El Paso Natural Gas Neztsosie, 526 473, 480, 119 1430, 143 635 (1999), declined theoretical status" rule. It sufficed point out "firmly entrenched" served advance "institutional interests fair notice repose." Ibid. "Indeed," noted, "in centuries repeatedly endorsing requirement, single holdings ever exception rule." Following approach taken again need type "jurisdictional" case. Congress eased specifying instances sentence, then adding clear instruction: Even Attorney files respect review, further prosecute [the] personal approval deputy solicitor designated General." 3742(b). entrusted named high-ranking officials within responsibility determining behalf public, higher would severely undermine Congress' instruction judges "sally forth" motion, cf. supra, 2577, up errors adverse authorized imposed.[4] Executive Branch exclusive authority absolute case." Nixon, 418 683, 693, 94 3090, 41 1039 (1974). comparable lodged pursuit appeal. recognize Congress, 3742(b), accorded top *2566 representatives litigation prerogative forgo errors, however be. measure garner Judiciary's full respect. III ordering add despite absence identified 52(b) source authority. 608-609, n. 5. reads: "A affects substantial rights considered even though brought attention." Nothing text history suggests rulemakers, codifying plain-error doctrine, meant override requirement. Advisory Committee's Notes Fed. Crim. Proc. 52, U.S.C.App., p. 1664 (describing restatement existing law"). Nor indeed noticed, ordered raised defendants, done so who himself grounds. See, Silber 370 717, 82 1287, 8 798 (1962) (per curiam). applied doctrine detriment petitioning Rather, every result modification advantage invoked bar correction. Chittenden Brewster, 2 Wall. 17 839 (1865), example, appellants asserted award entered small. prior entitled all. 195-196 (citing Jones 330, 553 (1864)). appellee filed left undisturbed. Wall., 196, 839. Strunk 412 434, 93 2260, 37 56 (1973), decided over century later, similarly illustrative. There, right speedy reduction compensation delay, dismissal charges against him. petitioner sought remedial order. 435, 2260. suggested there violation, "it seem[ed] defendant] large ... delay." 436, issue cross-petition, deprived Sixth Amendment right, 437, ruled remedy, 439-440, might circumstances initiate fit bill. Heightening principle, provided dispositive direction regarding aggrieve Government. earlier explained, 2576-2577, leading *2567 officers decisionmakers Those high officers, recognized, equipped determine where interest lies. invite interference assessment. B Amicus Circuit's links based similar 28 2106. Curiae Invitation 40-43 (hereinafter Brief). Section 2106 states federal "may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside reverse lawfully review." substantially reasons either. limited much less casesit applies criminal, errors. Were construction offers correct, displace cross-the-board. described 2106, "must exercised consistent requirements Rules Civil interpreted Court." Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. Swift-Eckrich, 546 394, 402-403, 4, 126 980, 163 974 (2006). No different conclusion warranted certain" 325. C defending judgment, places heavy weight pinned 3742, Code provision governing sentences. reads once either remand illegal regardless hurts helps appealing party." 9. directed, argues, instructing upon record, "shall violation law," 3742(e) added), remand" determines, 3742(f)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. V) added). 10-11, 3. makes text-based observation. notes 3742(f)(2)the covering "outside [G]uideline range"calls departure Sentencing Guidelines harms appellant. contrast, emphasizes, 3742(f)(1)the controlling law" Guideline application errorscontains such appellant-linked limitation. inference draws distinction intended 3742(f)(1), i.e., those (or incorrectly applying Guidelines), category covered 3742(f)(2). 14-15. novel time Court,[5] clever *2568 complex, ultimately unpersuasive. enacted 3742 1984. Reform Act, 213(a), 98 Stat. 2011. time, solidly grounded practice. 2573-2574. properly drawn, think, aware framed expecting new operate harmony enlarging judgments cross-appeal. Cf. Astoria Sav. Loan Assn. Solimino, 501 104, 108, 111 2166, 115 96 (1991) ("Congress understood legislate background common-law adjudicatory principles."). indicated awareness measure, Organized Crime Control Act 1970 (OCCA), Pub.L. 91-452, 84 922, "dangerous special offenders." 1001(a), 948-951. crafted explicit deemed taking [an appeal] defendant." 950. "deeming" direction: "[A] severe" OCCA provided, "only review... States." 950-951.[6] repealed and, broadly sentences, express short, formulated precise intention. Notably, legislated expose response spoke legislation, leaving nothing infer. reason read current statute inventive manner proposes, inferring little. Amicus' yield some strange results. note two, particular. construction, give hand away other: 3742(b) entrusts certain illegally low 2574; according amicus, §§ (f) instruct thereby trumping officials' decision. resist attributing intention render internally inconsistent. Western Air Lines, Board Equalization D., 480 123, 133, 107 1038, 112 (1987) ("The illogical results [a proffered] interpretation strongly th[o]se results[.]"). Further, proposed draw puzzling between incorrect applications Guidelines, latter former not. why want differentiate decisions way.[7] *2569 D increasing advert procedural rules setting deadlines launching cross-appeals. Unyielding character, these seen auxiliary Appellate 3(a)(1) provides "[a]n permitted law... filing [prescribed] time." (Emphasis added.) Complementing 3(a)(1), 4(b)(1)(B)(ii) instructs 30 days 4(b)(4) states, extended "for period exceed days." 26(b) bars extension beyond time. firm legal finality. Thus faces can proceed anticipating will enlarge And warning, briefing exposes him risk Given early tailor account risk. Or agreement voluntary competing 42(b), positions become hardened hours invested preparing consideration. limits notices undermined, could prosecution, peril, alert until decreed. very strategic known soon risked 15-year already lengthy E said requires so-called "sentencing package cases." typically involve multicount indictments successful attack counts instances, entire reconfigure plan assure remains adequate satisfy factors 3553(a) ed. V). remanded relates, remaining *2570 originally particular counts, aggregate initially 11 (citing, Pimienta-Redondo, 874 9 1989) (en banc)). gain success lose nothing, serve ordered. describes odds stops ensures "`will suit merely individual defendant.'" F.2d, 14 (quoting Wasman 468 564, 104 3217, 424 (1984)). assessment judge exercising discretion, panel ruling tendered court.[8] package" unsuccessful issues. There occasion warrant, addition sentence.[9] * vacated, proceedings BREYER, agree ALITO *2571 courts, rather limitation power, join Parts I-III Moreover, matter, leave "seldom action." Universal Camera Corp. NLRB, 340 474, 490, 71 456, 95 456 (1951). since now consider here acted properly. Primarily majority footnote opinion, believe abused precedent precludes creation solely obviousness lower 195-196, (1865). how justice significantly disserved permitting release roughly age 62, behind bars, opposed 77. ALITO, whom STEVENS joins, BREYER joins I, II, III, dissenting. respectfully dissent view akin invoke decline raised. Both rest premises efficient use judicial resources tribunal sound followed. just make exceptions understand reviewing enjoy enjoys address sponte. Absent congressional contrary, oversight supervisory entrust appeals. Before laying my detail, subject-matter jurisdiction appellee's Because question. ante, 2565. confront it, regard seems me prime example "`rule practice,' exceptions, unqualified limit courts." (1999). While enforce divest jurisdiction. never addressed contingent duly majority's contention supporting" "`jurisdictional'" 2564-2565, relies misreading precedent. previously characterized limiting "`[t]he decree,'" ibid. (1937)), conditioned *2572 lack something jurisdiction, inflexible being jurisdictional. Eberhart 12, 19, 403, (2005) fixed Congress. Bowles 551 127 2360, 2364-2365, 168 (2007); Ankenbrandt Richards, 504 689, 698, 2206, (1992) ("`[T]he (except enumerated exclusively Court) dependent distribution organization, modes exercise, entirely action Congress'" Cary Curtis, How. 236, 245, 576 (1845))). wants withhold expand parties, so. Const., Art. (authorizing establish corollary, fix jurisdiction); Kontrick Ryan, 443, 452, 906, 867 (2004) ("Only jurisdiction"). reduces condition questions, relevant evidence intent. 3742(a) authorizes "file appeal" was, possibilities, "imposed law." E.g., 3742(a)(1). parallel unlawful 3742(b)(1). conditions language remotely lacks fact, mention appeal," correcting anything, opposite. Without way, determine, things, 3742(e)(1). 3742(f)(2) depending compare 3742(f)(2)(A) (sentences "too high" filed) 3742(f)(2)(B) low" filed), appears 3742(f)(1). paragraph guidelines." Since effect important Judiciary. *2573 identifies interests: litigants Ante, 2565-2566; 1430. One serves third interest: adequately briefed decides. 28.1(c) Notes, pp. 615-616. abstract, them. Notice. With notice, benefits unyielding insubstantial. alerted possibility her hold, strong followed exceptional failure file mean vast thereafter little rare arose conceivable result. unreasonable serious favor. existence complete surprise assistance solution problem eliminate appeals' egregious supplemental orif deems insufficientsimply refuse exercise Irizarry 2198, ___ L.Ed.2d 2008 WL 2369164, *5-6 holding substance receives; accelerates few weeks small number cases. contends "[g]iven sentence] [o]r appeals." 2569 42(b)). explain boilerplate document, "tailor arguments." Whether ironclad, believes, wishes free commitment terminate taken. 42(b). Finality. An Judiciary finality decisions. grant additional relief interrupt long, undisturbed slumber. error's repose begins deadline ends opinionand often sooner. Here, slumber broken Orderly Briefing. doubt improves quality decisionmaking, hardly follows seriously prejudice *2574 obligated prejudicial party; noticed concluded issue, could, wished, briefing. If, hand, briefs ordinary course interfere administration work, issue. Therefore, orderly furthered denying discretionary find decide. Indeed, adopts disserve efficiency prejudiced direct obviate collateral attack. Granberry Greer, 134, 1671, (allowing merits unexhausted habeas corpus petition comity federalism better addressing forthwith [than] requiring series state district claim"); Munaf Geren, 2207, 2369260, *12 (recognizing "occasions merits" threshold matters). efficient, rigid enforcement likely waste conserve sum, exaggerates overlooks disserves: public grossly confidence stressed importance interest, see, Olano, 507 725, 736-737, 1770, 123 (1993); Press-Enterprise Superior Cal., Riverside Cty., 464 501, 507, 819, 78 629 (1984); New York Central R. Johnson, 279 310, 318, 49 300, 73 706 (1929), justified traditional framework contexts. mentions contexts, 2564 (pro litigation), others deserve mention. well-known review. "[a] independently decision, 2565-2566, Rule's underlying policy sheds light us. explained "`seriously affec[t] fairness, integrity reputation proceedings.'" 736, 1770 Atkinson, 297 157, 160, 391, 80 555 (1936)). preservation "fairness, *2575 proceedings" sometimes Perhaps closest analogue restrains made. avoid resolving unaired change outcome. Santiago Rumsfeld, 425 549, 552, (C.A.9 2005); Cervini, 379 987, 994, (C.A.10 2004). inflexible, Santiago, 1, depart Nat. Bank Ore. Independent Ins. Agents America, 439, 448, 2173, 402 (1993) ("After giving ample opportunity impropriety refusing accept stipulation Swift Hocking Valley 243 281, 289, 287, 61 722 (1917))); Moyer, 1311, 1317-1318 2002); Dorris Absher, 179 420, 425-426 (C.A.6 1999). patent 426 (concluding error, overlooked, miscarriage justice"); Consumers Union Power Comm'n, 510 656, 662 (C.A.D.C.1974) (balancing "considerations orderliness greatest possible accuracy decisionmaking"). impact go discretion. Ore., 2173 (reviewing abuse discretion). good model persuaded stake awards qualitatively raises Authority recognizes outweigh fidelity tradition. here. themselves sponte, latitude cross-appeal.[1] advocate step "subject [or] *2576 reserved ibid., reached conclusions, 2, confirm assumed: cross-appealed claims disavow today. long confronted stiffer Chaffin Stynchcombe, 17, 1977, 36 714 (1973); North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 719-720, 89 2072, 23 656 (1969), overruled grounds, Alabama Smith, 490 794, 109 2201, 865 (1989). effort analytical difference one. discovery (by dint review) law?[2] today, refuses admits calling "`inveterate certain,'" 2564-2565 325), allows "there review," 2566-2567; 2564, 2. mandate class cases justifies asymmetry pointing According *2577 majority, "[i]t `sally forth' motion imposed." 2565 (citation omitted). apportion Judicial Branches. By terms, apportions executive department. Government" "prosecute" listed officials. says Had restrict stop "prosecut[ing]" unauthorized appeals; Appeals" "deciding" design imputes drafters inconsistent another Suppose imposes below range ground unreasonable. discovers, overlooking subject. wanted. theory, 2565, imposition minimum, belonged alone. statute, signed off 3742(b)'s implies encroachment prerogatives Executive. wanted force entertain regarded sufficiently leadership Justice. Allowing way trenches Executive's institutional interests. ensure maintained across perhaps maximize high-level nix meritless marginal ones. These IV given above, *2578 errs vacating dissent.[3] NOTES [1] added jury's finding discharged. 44-45, 59-60. [2] present post, [3] Kaplan, ProcedureReflections Comparison Buffalo L.Rev. 409, 431-432 (1960) (U.S. "exploits free-wheeling energies confrontation detached judge"; "German puts trust paternalistic bent cooperation somewhat muted zeal"). [4] restraint apportioning "authority department." Post, 2576-2577; 2577 ("[P]erhaps giv[e] [sentencing appeals]."). needed General local Attorneys prosecution unlikely, having top-ranking shared 200 judges. [5] defend aired. Railway Express 265 425, 560, 68 1087 (1924) ("[T]he may, urge decree matter appearing record[.]"). [6] Controlled Substances 1970, 409(h), 1268-1269, contained matching instructions offender[s]." prescriptions Acts replaced 3742. 1984, 212(2), 219, 1987, 2011, 2027. [7] proffered Booker, 543 220, 125 738, 160 621 (2005), excised provisions. Compare Rita 2456, 2471, 203 (2007) (STEVENS, concurring) (Booker portions de novo appeals), 2483 judgment) (f)). Kimbrough 558, 578, (THOMAS, dissenting) (the Booker whatever followed). [8] anomalous "successful" itself agree, confine court. default forfeiture doctrines do. hard imagine uncorrected What post-Booker defendants' asks? 2576, defendants precisely sought, required. Neither nor play. [9] spirited narrow gap core Court's. rooted presentation, concedes, sway "vast 2573. Does qualify "rare" "strong practice" advocates? chosen insist 180 more, Was "grossly prejudicial," 2574, 2575-2576, harmful justice, 2574-2575, warrant correction? standard assessment? venturing answer 2578, 3, "entrust appeals," 2571. whenever three composing "wron[g] right." 2573 (internal quotation marks answer, jurisprudence, reinforced [whether] correction" 2574. argues original neither fundamentally unfair Appeals. 2570, considerations, infra, surely broad inappropriate finds "hard 8. Happily, day. examples, look masse following recent Booker's wake, common newly claiming enhancements advisory guidelines. Many resentencing, wound remand. Singletary, 458 72, 77(CA2) (affirming lengthened 12 remand), cert. denied, 549 1047, 616, 166 457 (2006); Reinhart, 857, 860-861 (C.A.5 2006) 210 235 remand). represent straightforward lengthened. yet corrected fails conceptual permits unappealed permit appeal? whether, assumption party, petitioner, exceptions. fact-bound subsidiary question, affirm reaching it. International Business Machines Corp., 517 843, 855, 116 1793, 135 (1996).

Category: 8