Opinion ID: 789371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The April 18, 2002 Order Reduces Only Spallone's Incarceratory Sentence

Text: 30 The interpretation of the text of a court order or judgment is considered a conclusion of law subject to de novo review. See In re Duplan Corp., 212 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir.2000) (reviewing bankruptcy court's interpretation of district court order de novo ); SEC v. Salomon Inc., 78 F.3d 802, 805 (2d Cir.1996) (applying de novo review to terms of a final judgment). When an issuing judge interprets his own orders, we accord substantial deference to the draftsman, and we will not reverse the judge's construction of an ambiguity in his own words except for abuse of discretion. See In re Blackwood Assocs., L.P., 153 F.3d 61, 66 (2d Cir.1998) (explaining that such deference is premised on the truism that the draftsman of a document is uniquely situated to understand the intended meaning of that document); County of Suffolk v. Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., 106 F.3d 1112, 1117 (2d Cir.1997) (stating that issuing judge's interpretation should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion); Truskoski v. ESPN, Inc., 60 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir.1995) (per curiam) (It is peculiarly within the province of the district court ... to determine the meaning of its own order.) (internal quotation marks omitted). That, however, is not this case. Because Judge Hurley did not draft the April 18, 2002 order, we apply traditional de novo review to his interpretation. Cf. In re Blackwood Assoc., 153 F.3d at 66 (bankruptcy court's interpretation of stipulation drafted by the parties entitled to no special deference). 8
31 Court orders are construed like other written instruments, except that the determining factor is not the intent of the parties, but that of the issuing court. See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 286 (3d Cir.1991) (stating that court's responsibility is to construe a judgment as to give effect to the intention of the court, not to that of the parties (quoting United States v. 60.22 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Klickitat County, 638 F.2d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir.1980))); see also In re 85-02 Queens Boulevard Assocs., 212 B.R. 451, 455 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1997) (citing 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 94 (West 1994)). As a general matter, a court decree or judgment is to be construed with reference to the issues it was meant to decide. Mayor & Aldermen of City of Vicksburg v. Henson, 231 U.S. 259, 269, 34 S.Ct. 95, 58 L.Ed. 209 (1913). Thus, an order will not be construed as going beyond the motion in pursuance of which the order was made, for a court is presumed not to intend to grant relief which was not demanded. Harrigan v. Mason & Winograd, Inc., 121 R.I. 209, 213, 397 A.2d 514, 516 (R.I.1979)(internal citations omitted); see Prouty v. Clayton County, 264 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 1978); 56 Am.Jur.2d Motions § 48 (West 2004). 32 Although [c]ourt orders `must ordinarily be interpreted by examination of only the four corners of the document,' Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d at 286) (quoting United States v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc., 662 F.2d 955, 961 (3d Cir.1981)), where, as in this case, an ambiguity in terminology results in a lack of clarity as to the scope of the ruling, a reviewing court may properly examine `the entire record for the purpose of determining what was decided,' id. (quoting Security Mut. Cas. Co. v. Century Cas., Co., 621 F.2d 1062, 1064 (10th Cir.1980)); see also United States v. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 643 F.2d 644, 651 (9th Cir.1981) (While the district court is bound to construe the judgment by the meaning to be found within its `four corners,' the court may also consider the surrounding circumstances at formation as aids in construing the judgment. (internal citation omitted)); Eaton v. Courtaulds of N. Am., Inc., 578 F.2d 87, 91 (5th Cir.1978) (Where ambiguities exist in the language of a consent decree, the court may turn to other `aids of construction,' such as other documents to which the consent decree refers, as well as legal materials setting the context for the use of particular terms.); Capetan v. Brownell, 148 F.Supp. 519, 520 (E.D.N.Y.1957) (In construing orders and judgments, the entire contents of the instrument and the record should be taken into consideration in ascertaining the intent.) (citing Smith v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 67 F.2d 167 (4th Cir.1933))).
33 Applying these principles to this case, we preliminarily observe that Rule 35(b) authorizes a district court to reduce any aspect of a defendant's sentence, including supervised release terms and orders of restitution not mandated by statute. See United States v. McMillan, 106 F.3d 322, 324-25 (10th Cir.1997). 9 Nevertheless, we conclude from the totality of circumstances that the sentence reduced by the district court's April 18, 2002 order was only Spallone's prison sentence. The order is not fairly construed to reduce the sentences of supervised release and restitution stated in Spallone's August 18, 2000 judgment of conviction. 34 In reaching this conclusion, we begin with an observation derived from this court's review of countless records in criminal cases and undoubtedly well known to district courts: the primary — often singular — concern of the parties and the court when applications are made for sentence reductions (whether presented as pre-sentence motions for departure from the Sentencing Guidelines or post-judgment motions under Rule 35(b)) is the term of incarceration a defendant will have to serve. Only infrequently do such applications seek relief from post-release supervision or restitution because the very fact that a defendant will be subject to these non-incarceratory conditions may actually enhance the likelihood of a defendant securing a reduction in his term of confinement. Supervised release, after all, permits the court to monitor a defendant's re-entry into society and to re-incarcerate him if a violation of supervision demonstrates that he was not, in fact, an appropriate candidate for early release. At the same time, continuing restitution obligations ensure that a released defendant cannot enjoy the proceeds of his crime while his victims continue to bear losses. These realities suggest that a reviewing court should proceed cautiously in assuming that a Rule 35(b) order reducing a defendant's prison sentence to time served also implicitly vacates all other punishments stated in the judgment of conviction, including supervised release and restitution. 35 Indeed, the record does not support such an assumption in this case. It demonstrates the district court's awareness that the parties sought a Rule 35(b) ruling in April 2002 — before Spallone's cooperation had resulted in an arrest or prosecution — precisely to afford Spallone some reduction in his prison term before he completed the thirty-month sentence. This goal was expressly communicated in the government's April 1, 2002 letter, which was apparently written at the behest of defense counsel. The district court then inquired whether the government would oppose a sentence reduction to time served, in short, whether it opposed defendant's immediate release from custody. Nothing in the record indicates that the district court contemplated that, upon such release, Spallone would also be excused from supervision or restitution as stated in the judgment of conviction. 36 As Judge Mishler undoubtedly knew, his ability to modify these non-incarceratory punishments would not end abruptly with his ruling on the Rule 35(b) motion. Modifications to the conditions of supervised release are independently governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), which permits a court to terminate supervised release after one year, see id. § 3583(e)(1), or to modify, reduce, or enlarge the conditions of supervised release, at any time prior to the expiration or termination of the term of supervised release, id. § 3583(e)(2); see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1 (outlining procedures for modifications of supervised release); United States v. Navarro-Espinosa, 30 F.3d 1169, 1171 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that even if district court lacked the power to correct defendant's sentence pursuant to Rule 35, it was authorized by Rule 32.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) to modify the sentence to include a condition of supervised release inadvertently omitted from the original judgment of conviction). Because restitution was made a special condition of Spallone's supervised release, we assume here, as we did in United States v. Lussier, that § 3583(e)(2) would have authorized the district court to make some modifications of this condition, at least with respect to the schedule on which Spallone paid restitution. 104 F.3d 32, 34 (2d Cir.1997); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). In sum, the time sensitivity prompting the government to seek a Rule 35(b) ruling in Spallone's case in April 2002, applied only to defendant's prison sentence; no comparable urgency pertained to his supervised release conditions or his restitution order. 37 Certainly, Spallone himself never asked the court to reduce his supervised release term or restitution obligation. We expect that he — or certainly his counsel — recognized the point we made earlier: the fact that Spallone remained subject to these non-incarceratory punishments likely made it easier for the district court to grant him the primary relief sought, i.e., release from prison. This was not, after all, a case in which defendant's cooperation had produced such significant assistance or had demonstrated such remarkable rehabilitation that a district court would likely terminate all punishments stated in the original judgment of conviction. Further, the fact that the able and experienced district court judge proceeded by order rather than issuing an amended judgment indicates that he did not use the term sentenced to that sweeping effect in granting Rule 35(b) relief. Where an order is silent on a form of sentencing relief that was neither raised nor argued, and particularly where that form of relief is not routinely the focus of Rule 35(b) applications, we will not construe an ambiguity in the order to reach that issue. Cf. Truskoski v. ESPN, Inc., 60 F.3d at 77 (refusing to disturb district court's ruling that an award of pension credits was not implicit in a judgment because the pension-benefits question had not been raised or argued). 10 In sum, we conclude that the April 18, 2002 order sentenced Spallone to time served rather than thirty months' incarceration, leaving the supervised release and restitution provisions of the original judgment of conviction undisturbed. 38 In reaching this same conclusion, Judge Hurley cited approvingly to the Seventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Niemiec, 689 F.2d at 689-91. In that case, a defendant who received a Rule 35 reduction in his term of incarceration insisted that the court's order, by not reiterating the fine and costs imposed by his original judgment, necessarily vacated that part of his sentence. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, noting that the order merely reduced the defendant's term of incarceration and did not mention a fine and costs and thus left them in a status quo position, unchanged and unaltered. Id. at 690. In reaching this decision, the court cited two factors that parallel circumstances of this case: (1) the reason prompting Niemiec's motion under Rule 35, defendant's failing health, was specifically directed at the term of incarceration; and (2) neither party mentioned the judgment's fine and costs provision in urging a sentence reduction. See id. at 690-91. 39 Spallone submits that Niemiec is distinguishable from this case because the version of Rule 35 then in effect afforded district courts more latitude in reducing sentences, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 35, amended by Pub.L. 98-473, Title II, § 215(b), 98 Stat. 1837 (1984) (The court may reduce a sentence within 120 days after it is imposed....), and in modifying judgments to reflect more accurately the intended sentence, see United States v. Werber, 51 F.3d at 348-49 (and cases cited therein). We agree that Niemiec is distinguishable, but not for the reasons stated by Spallone. In Niemiec, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the Rule 35 order issued by the sentencing judge was unambiguous in reducing only the defendant's term of incarceration, not his obligation to pay a fine and costs. See United States v. Niemiec, 689 F.2d at 690. It ruled that another district judge did not abuse his discretion, upon review of the totality of the circumstances, when he decided not to modify an order of the sentencing judge ruling that the Rule 35(b) award did not relieve defendant of his obligations to pay the fine and costs. Id. at 693. 40 Were Spallone's Rule 35 order unambiguous, we agree that the present Rules of Criminal Procedure would not allow modification or correction. But, for reasons already discussed, we conclude that there is some ambiguity in the order's use of the word sentenced. Accordingly, in this case, Judge Hurley did not exceed his authority in interpreting that word in light of the totality of the circumstances, including circumstances similar to those present in Niemiec. Further, on our own de novo review of the record, we reach the same conclusion as Judge Hurley. The word sentenced, as used in Judge Mishler's Rule 35(b) order, is properly interpreted to refer only to Spallone's term of incarceration. In light of his cooperation, he was sentenced to time served instead of thirty months. Because the order does not supersede any other provisions of the original judgment of conviction, Spallone remains obligated to serve the imposed term of supervised release and to pay full restitution.