Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/106/322/557837/
Timestamp: 2020-08-05 06:07:20
Document Index: 362899448

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 848', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 4', '§ 3742', '§ 3742', '§ 1291', '§ 3742', '§ 3742', '§ 3573', '§ 3573', '§ 848', '§ 841']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert Mcmillan, Defendant-appellant, 106 F.3d 322 (10th Cir. 1997) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1997 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert Mcmillan, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert Mcmillan, Defendant-appellant, 106 F.3d 322 (10th Cir. 1997)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 106 F.3d 322 (10th Cir. 1997) Feb. 4, 1997
Robert W. McMillan appeals from the denial of the government's Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)1 motion to reduce his fines in two cases. McMillan was charged in the Eastern District of Louisiana (Case No. 92-CR-154) with one count of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848 and one count of conspiracy to distribute MDMA (ecstasy) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. He was also charged by indictment in the District of Colorado (Case No. 91-CR-245) with conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. He pleaded guilty to these charges and was sentenced for all offenses in the District of Colorado on July 29, 1992, receiving 144 months imprisonment and a $150,000 fine for case number 92-CR-154, and 144 months imprisonment and a $75,000 fine for case number 91-CR-245, the terms of imprisonment to run concurrently.
On June 3, 1996, McMillan filed a notice of appeal from the district court's order denying reduction of the fines, three days past the ten-day deadline established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).2 On June 26, this court entered a show cause order, instructing the parties to file memorandum briefs discussing whether the untimely notice precludes this court's jurisdiction.3 On July 5, more than forty days after entry of the order being appealed, McMillan filed a motion in the district court to extend the time for filing his appeal, arguing that there was excusable neglect for his untimely notice based on inherent delays in the mail and the difficulty of communicating with an incarcerated defendant. See Appellant's App. at 42-44. The district court found excusable neglect and granted the motion. Id. at 47-48.
We agree with the parties that this court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal despite McMillan's untimely notice of appeal. In United States v. Lucas, 597 F.2d 243, 245 (10th Cir. 1979), we held that a defendant who filed his notice of appeal within the Rule 4(b) thirty-day extension period may obtain relief by showing excusable neglect notwithstanding his failure to file a motion seeking such relief within that same time frame. See also United States v. Andrews, 790 F.2d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1986). Because McMillan filed his notice of appeal within the thirty-day extension period, and because the district court subsequently determined there was excusable neglect, this court has appellate jurisdiction.4
We review de novo the district court's determination that it had no jurisdiction under Rule 35(b) to reduce fines, FDIC v. Hulsey, 22 F.3d 1472, 1479 (10th Cir. 1994), and we agree with the government and the defendant that the district court erred.5 Rule 35(b) allows a district court to reduce a sentence to reflect a defendant's substantial assistance in the prosecution of others in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines and policy statements. The Sentencing Guidelines clearly include fines as a type of criminal sentence. See USSG § 4A1.2(a) (defining prior sentence as "any sentence previously imposed upon adjudication of guilt") (emphasis added); United States v. Gallego, 905 F.2d 482, 483 (1st Cir. 1990). The statutes under which McMillan was convicted similarly include fines as a component of the sentence.6 Also, courts have reduced fines under Rule 35(b) in other cases.7 See, e.g., United States v. Glantz, 884 F.2d 1483, 1488 (1st Cir. 1989) (holding motion to modify fine should have been considered part of Rule 35(b) motion to reduce sentence); United States v. Linker, 920 F.2d 1, 2 (7th Cir. 1990) (stating defendant had right to request a remission of fine under Rule 35(b)).
Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) provides:
Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) provides in relevant part:
While not discussed by the parties, we have jurisdiction to hear McMillan's appeal from denial of the government's motion because McMillan claims injury from the court's decision. See United States v. McAndrews, 12 F.3d 273, 278 (1st Cir. 1993). We also agree with the majority of circuits that jurisdiction to hear appeals from the resolution of a Rule 35(b) motion is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742. Compare United States v. Manella, 86 F.3d 201, 202-03 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding § 3742 provides jurisdiction over appeals from decisions on Rule 35(b) motions); United States v. Doe, 93 F.3d 67, 67-68 (2d Cir. 1996) (same); United States v. Arishi, 54 F.3d 596, 599 (9th Cir. 1995) (same); and United States v. Pridgen, 64 F.3d 147, 148-49 (4th Cir. 1995) (same); with McAndrews, 12 F.3d at 277 (holding appealability from order concerning Rule 35(b) motion is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1291). Because the district court held it had no jurisdiction to reduce the fines, we construe McMillan's claim as one that his sentence was imposed in violation of law, reviewable under § 3742(a) (1). See United States v. Flanagan, 87 F.3d 121, 125 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding district court's determination that it lacked authority to depart provided jurisdiction under § 3742)
The district court mistakenly stated that its authority to correct a fine was controlled by 18 U.S.C. § 3573, and not by rule 35(b). Section 3573 provides for modification or remission of a fine " [u]pon petition of the Government showing that reasonable efforts to collect a fine or assessment are not likely to be effective...." The government has not made such a petition or allegation in this case, and § 3573 does not apply
For example, 21 U.S.C. § 848 provides: "Any person who engages in a continuing criminal enterprise shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 20 years and which may be up to life imprisonment, to a fine ..., and to the forfeiture prescribed ...." (emphasis added). See also 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (C) ("shall be sentenced to ... a fine")