Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1681864.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 15:24:20+00:00

Document:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Frederick H.K. BAKER, Defendant–Appellant.
Before KELLY, EBEL, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. Warren R. Williamson, Federal Public Defender and Jill M. Wichlens, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Denver, CO, for Defendant–Appellant Frederick H.K. Baker. John F. Walsh, United States Attorney and Robert Mark Russel, Assistant United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff–Appellee United States of America.
Baker's co-defendant Akins later pled guilty to two of the charged offenses and the district court sentenced him to twenty-seven months in prison. Akins's guilty plea and sentencing occurred within one year of Baker's sentencing. Twice during this one-year period, Baker and his attorney asked the Government to file a Rule 35(b) motion to reduce Baker's sentence. But because the Government thought it still might need Baker's testimony during Akins's restitution hearing, the Government delayed filing the Rule 35(b) motion. As it turned out, the Government did not need Baker's testimony during the restitution hearing. After that hearing, which occurred in November 2012, more than one year after Baker's sentencing, Baker and his attorney again asked the Government to file a Rule 35(b) motion on Baker's behalf. The Government did so on January 28, 2013, more than fifteen months after Baker's sentencing.
We review de novo the district court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Government's Rule 35(b) motion. See United States v. Luna–Acosta, 715 F.3d 860, 864 (10th Cir.2013).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” United States v. Blackwell, 81 F.3d 945, 946 (10th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). And they “generally lack jurisdiction to modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.” United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275, 1277 (10th Cir.2013) (citing Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819 (2010)); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). “[A] district court is authorized to modify a defendant's sentence only in specified instances where Congress has expressly granted the court jurisdiction to do so.” United States v. Price, 438 F.3d 1005, 1007 (10th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks, alterations omitted).
Congress expressly granted district courts limited jurisdiction to modify sentences in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). See United States v. Green, 405 F.3d 1180, 1184 (10th Cir.2005). The part of that statute pertinent here provides that a district “court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that ․ the court may modify an imposed term of imprisonment to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). Like § 3582(c), Rule 35's requirements are jurisdictional. See United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 189 (1979) (holding time limits in prior version of Rule 35 are jurisdictional); United States v. McGaughy, 670 F.3d 1149, 1151, 1155–58 (10th Cir.2012) (joining all other circuits that have addressed the question and holding that Rule 35(a)'s fourteen-day time limit for correcting arithmetical, technical or clear errors is jurisdictional).
(B) information provided by the defendant to the government within one year after sentencing, but which did not become useful to the government until more than one year after sentencing.
Baker's information assisted in trial preparation, plea negotiations and sentencing—all of which took place within the year after Baker's sentencing. The information was also useful, however, in preparation for and in conducting the three day restitution hearing in this matter, which took place outside the year after Baker's sentencing hearing.
Rule 35(b)(2)(B)'s language—“did not become useful to the government until more than one year after sentencing”—does not include information that was useful both before and after the one-year mark; that is, information that was useful before the one-year mark and continued to be useful thereafter. In particular, the Rule's use of the word “until” denotes the time at which the information first became “useful” to the Government.
The parties suggest, instead, that Baker's “information ․ did not become useful to the government” until the full extent of his assistance was known to the Government, after his co-defendant's restitution proceedings concluded more than one year after Baker's sentencing.5 But Rule 35(b)(2)(B) expressly extends jurisdiction beyond Rule 35(b)(1)'s one-year deadline only when the defendant's “substantial assistance involved ․ information ․ which did not become useful to the government until more than one year after sentencing.” (Emphasis added.) Congress could have provided otherwise, by expressly giving district courts jurisdiction to reduce a defendant's sentence, for instance, when the information the defendant provided continued to be useful to the Government both before and after the one-year mark or when the extent of the information's usefulness could not be fully determined by the one-year deadline. But Congress did not do so and we are left to apply the rule as Congress wrote it. See United States v. Carey, 120 F.3d 509, 513 (4th Cir.1997) (applying prior version of Rule 35(b) according to its “unambiguous text”).
The Government concedes that, under the circumstances presented here, if it could not have measured the usefulness of Baker's assistance before his co-defendant's restitution hearing, which occurred more than one year after Baker's sentencing, the Government could have filed a Rule 35(b) motion within the year following Baker's sentencing, in order to preserve the district court's jurisdiction under Rule 35(b)(1) to reduce Baker's sentence, and then ask the district court to wait to address that motion until the full extent of Baker's assistance was known to the Government. See Orozco, 160 F.3d at 1310 n. 1 (11th Cir.) (discussing such a procedure); see also United States v. Ruiz, No. 07–00301 HG–01, 2013 WL 3760649, at *1 (D.Haw. July 16, 2013) (unreported). As the Government acknowledges, however, it did not realize the need to do so in this case until it was too late.
For the foregoing reasons, then, we conclude that the circumstances presented here—where Baker provided information that was useful to the Government both before and after the one-year anniversary of his sentencing—do not fall within the jurisdiction that Rule 35(b)(2)(B) provides the district court to reduce sentences.
On appeal, Baker urges this court to extend Rule 35(b)(2)(B)'s jurisdiction beyond the rule's express terms so that it applies to the circumstances presented here, where Baker provided information that continued to be useful to the Government after the one-year anniversary of his sentencing. In making this argument, Baker relies on, e.g., United States v. Morales, 52 F.3d 7 (1st Cir.1995). Morales addressed a prior version of Rule 35(b) which permitted the Government to file a motion to reduce a sentence more than one year after sentencing “where the defendant's substantial assistance involves information or evidence not known by the defendant until one year or more after imposition of sentence.” 52 F.3d at 8 n. 2. Although Defendant Morales knew of the information she provided the Government within one year of her sentencing, the First Circuit interpreted the rule broadly, holding that “until becoming aware of its value, or being specifically asked, a defendant cannot be said to ‘know’ useful information.” Id. at 8. Several other circuits, however, declined to follow Morales in extending the prior version of Rule 35(b) beyond its clear and express terms. See Orozco, 160 F.3d at 1313–16 & 1315 n. 9 (11th Cir.); Carey, 120 F.3d at 511–13 (4th Cir.); United States v. Evans, No. 95–5144, 1996 WL 167484, at *5 (10th Cir. Apr. 10, 1996) (unpublished).
Similarly, we decline to extend Rule 35(b)(2)(B) beyond its clear terms. Those terms are jurisdictional. See McGaughy, 670 F.3d at 1151, 1155–58. And the district court only has jurisdiction to modify a previously imposed sentence if Congress gives the court such jurisdiction. See Blackwell, 81 F.3d at 947. “We are not at liberty to add terms or posit an interpretation that differs from the explicit language of Rule 35(b), particularly when we can decide this case within the plain terms of the rule.” Orozco, 160 F.3d at 1316 (11th Cir.); see also Carey. 120 F.3d at 513 (4th Cir.) (applying “unambiguous text” of Rule 35(b)).
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Government's Rule 35(b)(2)(B) motion to reduce Baker's sentence. It is unfortunate for Baker that the Government's delay in filing the Rule 35(b) motion precludes him from reaping any sentencing benefit from the assistance he provided the Government. But because Rule 35(b)(2)(B)'s requirements are jurisdictional, the district court has no power now to reduce Baker's sentence. Though of no comfort to Baker, we note that the Government, in any event, sought only a six-month reduction of Baker's bottom-of-the-guideline, forty-one-month sentence.
1. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case was therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
2. We GRANT Baker's motion to file his opening brief under seal and seal the Government's answer brief as well.
3. See also R. v.2 at 14 ¶ 11(1) (stating Baker's “information enabled the government to refine its determination of losses attributable to Akins thereby assisting the government in plea negotiations and sentencing and restitution proceedings relating to Akins”); id. at 15 ¶ 11(5) (“The information provided by Mr. Baker was related far enough in advance to be effectively utilized in trial preparation, plea negotiations and plea and sentencing proceedings, and the restitution hearing pertaining to Mr. Akins.”).
4. On appeal, the Government, for the first time, seems to back away from its representations to the district court that the information Baker provided it was useful both before and after the one-year anniversary of Baker's sentencing. Instead, on appeal, the Government asserts that, while some of the information that Baker gave the Government was useful before the one-year mark, other information Baker provided was not useful until the restitution hearing, which occurred more than one year after Baker's sentencing. But the Government does not explain in any detail exactly what information became useful to it only after the one-year anniversary of Baker's sentence. (Aple. Br. at 2 (stating “specifically, (1) the part of [Baker's] statement that helped the government determine the amount of restitution sought for each investor, and (2) his expression of willingness to testify at his codefendant's restitution hearing”).) In light of its several previous representations to the district court that the information Baker provided was useful both before and after the one-year mark, the Government's vague argument on appeal—that some of the information was useful before the one-year mark, but some of it was not—is insufficient to establish that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the Government's Rule 35 motion to reduce Baker's sentence. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that, when Baker made a similarly vague argument to the district court, the district court declined to address it because only the Government can make a Rule 35(b) motion to reduce the defendant's sentence, see Blackwell, 81 F.3d at 948. But the court gave the Government an opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration explaining what information Baker provided it that did not become useful until after the one-year anniversary of Baker's sentencing. The Government, however, did not take advantage of that opportunity. And Baker has abandoned this argument on appeal.
5. In making this suggestion to the district court, the parties relied primarily on United States v. Riley, No. 07–189–GZS, 2011 WL 767638 (D.N.H. Feb. 28, 2011) (unreported). In that case, the defendant Riley, after his sentencing, provided the Government with information about two other individuals, Edward and Elaine Brown; Riley also offered to testify against each of them at their trial and sentencing proceedings. Id. at * 1. One of the sentencings occurred before the one-year anniversary of Riley's own sentencing proceeding, but the other occurred after the one-year mark. Id. Ultimately, the Government did not call Riley as a witness in any of those proceedings. Id. After the sentencing proceedings were over, more than one year after Riley's sentencing, the Government filed a motion to reduce Riley's sentence. Id. The district court held that it had jurisdiction, under Rule 35(b)(2)(B), to consider that motion because the Government could not have known, within one year, of “the extent” of the value of Riley's assistance. Riley, 2011 WL 767638 at *1–*2. There are several other unreported district court cases making similar determinations. See United States v. Bond, No. 01 CR 1140(LBS), 2005 WL 2347843, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2005) (unreported) (holding district court had jurisdiction to reduce defendant's sentence under Rule 35(b)(2)(B) where defendant began providing the Government with information within one year of his sentence, but that information “did not become useful to the government until his testimony [given at trial] more than one year later”); United States v. McMullan, No. 1:01–CR–26, 2005 WL 2017968, at *1 (W.D.Mich. Aug. 22, 2005) (unreported) (holding, without discussion, that district court had jurisdiction to reduce defendant's sentence under Rule 35(b)(2)(B) where defendant provided the Government with information both before and after his sentencing, but he had to wait over a year to testify). To the extent that any of these cases may be in tension with our opinion, we simply note that they are not binding precedent for our court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3582
 v. 
 § 3582
 v. 
 § 3582
 § 3582
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.