Source: https://openjurist.org/752/f2d/535
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 05:58:23+00:00

Document:
Roscoe Emory DEAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.
In re UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner.
Patty Mukaup Stemler, Appellate Section, Crim. Div., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant.
Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., University of Ga. School of Law, Athens, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, KRAVITCH and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.
On September 15, 1982, Dean filed a motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.3 On October 22, the district court denied the motion. On November 1, Dean moved for reconsideration; two weeks later, that motion likewise was denied.
On February 1, 1984, Dean filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 35(a).4 In his motion, Dean alleged that the sentencing court had relied on an erroneous prediction by a probation officer concerning the length of time Dean would likely serve in prison prior to parole. The probation officer had predicted that, under the Parole Commission's guidelines, and assuming the imposition of a sentence of not more than nine years' imprisonment, Dean would likely serve between 24 and 36 months prior to parole. On July 14, 1983, however, the Parole Commission determined that Dean would not become eligible for parole until he had served 40 to 52 months of his five-year sentence.5 On January 17, 1984, after an exchange of letters between Dean, the district court, and the Parole Commission, the Commission affirmed its prior decision as to Dean's parole eligibility.
On April 5, 1984, the district court granted Dean's motion, "modified" Dean's sentence "to be limited to time already served by the defendant," and ordered Dean released from prison instanter.6 The government filed a notice of appeal7 and a petition for a writ of mandamus8 on the grounds that the district court lacked the authority to reduce Dean's sentence. On June 27, a panel of this court denied without opinion the government's petition for a writ of mandamus. In re United States, No. 84-8475 (11th Cir. June 27, 1984) (unpublished order). Shortly thereafter, Dean filed a motion to dismiss the government's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The government's memorandum in opposition to Dean's motion suggested that, in the event the court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal, the court should "reinstate" the government's petition for a writ of mandamus. The government subsequently filed motions to (1) consolidate the appeal with the previous mandamus action, (2) vacate the order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, and (3) refile the petition for a writ of mandamus.
The order appealed from must be severable from, and collateral to, the main case; the right involved must be so important that to deny review would be inappropriate; the issue presented must be such that postponing review until the final termination of the case would cause the irreparable loss of the valued right.
We will treat the government's three pending motions as a new petition for a writ of mandamus. Because another panel of this court previously denied an identical petition filed by the government, In re United States, No. 84-8475 (11th Cir. June 27, 1984) (unpublished order), we must decide whether the doctrines of res judicata or law of the case preclude us from reaching the merits of the new petition.
... Denial of a writ commonly rests on severe limitations of jurisdiction and discretion that prevent the court from applying ordinary tests of reversible error. If a decision is confined by these limitations, it should not preclude examination of the merits in later proceedings. Preclusion is appropriate only if denial rested on the merits of the questions presented rather than remedial limitations.
18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, supra, Sec. 4445 at pp. 393-94, 396-97 (footnotes omitted); see Heinemann Chemical Co. v. Heiner, 92 F.2d 344, 346 (3d Cir.1937) (denial of petition for writ of mandamus has no res judicata effect on later suit to recover taxes paid, because denial of petition was based on laches, not merits of controversy); cf. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 340 n. 9, 80 S.Ct. 1084, 1088 n. 9, 4 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1960) (denial of leave to file petition for writ of mandamus has no res judicata effect on later petition for writ, in part because denial of leave was "not upon the merits"); Skil Corp. v. Millers Falls Co., 541 F.2d 554 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1029, 97 S.Ct. 653, 50 L.Ed.2d 631 (1976) (denial on the merits of petition for writ of mandamus has res judicata effect).
Nevertheless, because of the writ's extraordinary nature, this court's earlier denial, without statement of reasons, of the Church's petition for mandamus ... has no bearing on our decision of these appeals.
Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 310 n. 62 (emphasis added; citations omitted); see also Hospes v. Burmite Div. of Whittaker Corp., 420 F.Supp. 806, 809 (S.D.Miss.1976) (one-line denial of petition for writ of mandamus has no res judicata effect on later wrongful death action, because of inability to determine basis for denial and because mandamus is "extraordinary remedy" that is "reserved only for the most exceptional causes"). We adopt the rationale of Hubbard, and hold that, because we cannot determine the basis for the prior denial of the government's petition for a writ of mandamus, the denial does not have res judicata effect and does not prevent us from reaching the merits of the new petition.
Similarly, the law of the case doctrine does not prevent us from reaching the merits of the new petition. Although one aspect of the doctrine is that an appellate panel generally defers to a prior ruling in the same case by another panel of the same court, see United States v. Burns, 662 F.2d 1378, 1384 (11th Cir.1981); Morrow v. Dillard, 580 F.2d 1284, 1289-90 (5th Cir.1978); see generally 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, supra, Sec. 4478 at pp. 794-96, the doctrine applies only to issues that actually were decided in the prior proceeding, either expressly or by necessary implication. See Morrow, 580 F.2d at 1290. Thus, when the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus is, or may be, the result of the special limitations inherent in the writ, such a denial does not establish the law of the case. See Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 673 F.2d 1110, 1112-13 (9th Cir.1982) ("We hold ... that a summary denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus does not establish the law of the case."); 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, supra, Sec. 4478 at p. 798 ("Rulings that simply deny extraordinary relief for want of a clear and strong showing on the merits ... do not trigger law of the case consequences.").
Dean contends that the government is guilty of laches because it did not attempt to contest the denial of the prior petition until November 5, 1984, more than four months after the entry of the order denying the petition. The government's explanation for this delay, however, is reasonable: Knowing that its appeal was still pending, the government justifiably assumed that the panel had denied the petition for a writ of mandamus on the grounds that appeal, not mandamus, was the proper remedy.
The instant case is distinguishable from United States v. Olds, 426 F.2d 562 (3d Cir.1970), a sentence reduction case in which the court denied the government's petition for a writ of mandamus under the doctrine of laches. In Olds, the government waited nearly three months before taking any steps to challenge the sentence reduction order. Here, by contrast, the government quickly and unequivocally challenged the order reducing Dean's sentence.16 Because Dean could not have been misled about the government's intent to challenge the reduction of his sentence, Olds is inapposite.
[F]rom the outset, [the defendant] was put on notice that the government was challenging the reduction of his sentence. After filing its appeal, the government, being justifiably uncertain as to the proper procedural vehicle for review of an order reducing a criminal sentence, filed its petition for a writ of mandamus .... Thus, in view of the fact that in this case the government expeditiously appealed the order in question, we reject [the defendant's] contention that the government is guilty of laches with respect to its filing of the mandamus petition.
Id. at 153 (citation omitted).
We agree with the views expressed by the Third Circuit in Ferri, and we cannot say that the government acted unreasonably in the instant case. We therefore hold that the government was not guilty of laches in contesting the denial of the prior petition for a writ of mandamus.
Finally, we address the merits of the new petition for a writ of mandamus. The government contends that the writ should issue because the district court lacked the authority under Rule 35 to reduce Dean's sentence and because mandamus is the proper remedy. Dean responds that the district court had the authority to "correct" the sentence under Rule 35(a) because the sentence was originally entered on the basis of an erroneous material assumption about the length of time he would likely serve in prison prior to parole. Dean contends that, in view of this erroneous assumption, his original sentence violated the due process clause.
The import of this statutory scheme is clear: the judge has no enforceable expectations with respect to the actual release of a sentenced defendant short of his statutory term. The judge may well have expectations as to when release is likely. But the actual decision is not his to make, either at the time of sentencing or later if his expectations are not met.... [W]e hold that subsequent actions taken by the Parole Commission--whether or not such actions accord with a trial judge's expectations at the time of sentencing--do not retroactively affect the validity of the final judgment itself.
Id. at 188-90, 99 S.Ct. at 2242-43 (emphasis added).
Dean argues that Addonizio involved a claim that the sentence was merely "illegal," whereas the instant case involves an alleged violation of due process. We are unpersuaded by this imaginative attempt to distinguish Addonizio. A sentence that, under Addonizio, is not "illegal" can hardly rise to the level of a due process violation. Moreover, in Addonizio the Supreme Court concluded that the sentencing court's erroneous assumption about the defendant's parole eligibility did not constitute "misinformation of constitutional magnitude"; the Court stated that "the proceeding was not infected with any error of fact or law of the 'fundamental' character that renders the entire proceeding irregular and invalid." Id. at 186, 99 S.Ct. at 2241.
Absent the availability of mandamus, the limitation imposed by congress on the sentencing latitude accorded the trial court would go unheeded. The assumption of broad discretion by an appellate court in deciding whether or not to issue mandamus would be almost equivalent to granting the trial court the statutory authority denied it by congress. While relatively few cases have considered the problem in terms of principle, the Supreme Court and other appellate courts have responded to the application for the writ in such circumstances almost as if the applicant had a right to its issuance.
Based on the foregoing discussion, we GRANT (1) Dean's motion to dismiss the government's appeal, and (2) the government's petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to reinstate the defendant's original sentence. The remaining motions are DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; WRIT OF MANDAMUS ORDERED TO ISSUE.
(b) Reduction of Sentence. The court may reduce a sentence within 120 days after the sentence is imposed or probation is revoked, or within 120 days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal, or within 120 days after entry of any order or judgment of the Supreme Court denying review of, or having the effect of upholding, a judgment of conviction or probation revocation. Changing a sentence from a sentence of incarceration to a grant of probation shall constitute a permissible reduction of sentence under this subdivision.
Although Dean did not specify the subdivision of Rule 35 under which his September 15, 1982 motion was made, it is apparent from the content of the motion that Dean was requesting reduction of his sentence under Rule 35(b), and not correction of an illegal sentence under Rule 35(a).
(a) Correction of Sentence. The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided herein for the reduction of sentence.
Roscoe Emory Dean, Jr. was convicted, after a jury trial in this court, on May 14, 1980. His conviction was substantially affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Unit B on January 22, 1982.
The defendant has filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
After due consideration thereof, the sentence of confinement heretofore entered is modified to be limited to time already served by the defendant, and he is ordered released instanter. All other provisions of said sentence heretofore rendered are to remain in full force and effect.
SO ORDERED, this 5th day of April, 1984.
Dean has chosen on appeal to treat the district court's order as one granting relief under Rule 35(a). In any event, we note that the court could not properly have granted relief to Dean under Rule 35(b). The Supreme Court has held that the 120-day time limit contained in Rule 35(b) is jurisdictional. United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 189, 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2242-43, 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979); accord, United States v. Rice, 671 F.2d 455, 459 (11th Cir.1982); United States v. Norton, 539 F.2d 1082, 1083 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1103, 97 S.Ct. 1129, 51 L.Ed.2d 553 (1976); United States v. Mehrtens, 494 F.2d 1172, 1175 n. 1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 900, 95 S.Ct. 182, 42 L.Ed.2d 145 (1974). It is true that, if a motion to reduce sentence under Rule 35(b) is properly filed within the 120-day period, the district court retains jurisdiction for a "reasonable time" after the expiration of the 120 days "in those rare circumstances in which it is unable to decide the motion" within the 120-day period. See Rice, 671 F.2d at 459 n. 5; United States v. Mendoza, 581 F.2d 89, 90 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc ). This is not such a case, however, since Dean has not alleged the existence of any "rare circumstances" warranting relief from the 120-day limit. See Rice, 671 F.2d at 459 n. 5; Mehrtens, 494 F.2d at 1176.
We also note that the 120-day limit applies even where the district court purports to reconsider an earlier, timely Rule 35(b) motion. See Norton, 539 F.2d at 1083; see also United States v. Hetrick, 644 F.2d 752, 756 (9th Cir.1981) ("Nor is the jurisdictional defect cured by styling the subsequent motion as a 'motion for reconsideration.' ").
The courts of appeals ... shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States, ... except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.
The Denson panel opinion also discussed the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731, which enumerates certain instances in which the government may bring an appeal in a criminal case. Although 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731 was enacted "to remove all statutory barriers to Government appeals and to allow appeals whenever the Constitution would permit," United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 337, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1019, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975), the court explained that the statute "cannot be construed to authorize a Government appeal from any and every District Court order." Denson, 588 F.2d at 1125. The court concluded that the sentencing orders were "in no material way even related to the types of orders set out in Section 3731." Id. at 1126. The court therefore held that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731 did not provide a statutory basis for the government's appeal. Id.; accord, United States v. Ferri, 686 F.2d 147, 151 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1211, 103 S.Ct. 1205, 75 L.Ed.2d 446 (1983); United States v. DeMier, 671 F.2d 1200, 1204 n. 12 (8th Cir.1982). Denson forecloses any possible contention that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731 authorizes a government appeal in the instant case.
We acknowledge that at least three other circuits have ruled that the government may appeal sentence reduction orders entered under Rule 35. See United States v. DeMier, 671 F.2d 1200 (8th Cir.1982); United States v. United States District Court, 645 F.2d 7 (6th Cir.1981); United States v. Hetrick, 644 F.2d 752 (9th Cir.1981), modifying 627 F.2d 1007 (9th Cir.1980). We do not find these opinions persuasive. The Ninth Circuit's original opinion in Hetrick concluded that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 provided the statutory basis for government appeals of sentence reduction orders, and that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731, which previously had been held not to permit government appeals of such orders, did not preclude section 1291 jurisdiction. The court therefore held that the government may appeal such orders under section 1291. Hetrick, 627 F.2d at 1010. The court later modified its holding to state that the government may appeal such orders under section 3731. Hetrick, 644 F.2d at 754. We find this modified holding to be inconsistent with the rest of the Hetrick opinion, and we decline to adopt the Ninth Circuit's position. The Sixth Circuit rested its decision solely on the original opinion in Hetrick, without even mentioning the amended opinion. United States v. United States District Court, 645 F.2d at 8. Finally, the Eighth Circuit simply followed the Sixth Circuit. DeMier, 671 F.2d at 1204.
On rehearing en banc, the former Fifth Circuit acknowledged that "[d]iscretion might be inherent in the writ." Denson, 603 F.2d at 1147. The court also noted, however, that "[t]he scope of discretion is ... circumscribed by the purpose for which the writ is sought. Under some circumstances the room for judgment is narrowly constrained." Id. at 1146. The court found itself "constrained by the narrow scope of discretion dictated by precedent," id. at 1148, and unpersuaded by the reasons given by the panel in support of its decision not to issue the writ. Therefore, the en banc court issued the writ of mandamus. Id. at 1149.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.