Opinion ID: 3055099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 14-Day Time Limit on Correcting Sentences

Text: While we determine that Fawcett’s appeal of the July 26 order is timely, yet another complicated question arises because the district court did not rule on Fawcett’s July 19 Motion for Reconsideration or Correction of Sentence until July 26, which was more than 14 days after entry of the July 1 order (correcting Fawcett’s sentence) and the July 11 amended judgment (finalizing it). This creates the question of whether on July 26 the district court still retained jurisdiction to act. We say this because under Rule 35(a), a district court may, “[w]ithin 14 days after sentencing, . . . correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). Additionally, we have held that Rule 35(a)’s 14-day time limit in which a district court may act to correct a sentence is jurisdictional. United States v. Diaz-Clark, 292 F.3d 1310, 1317 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Phillips, 597 F.3d at 1196–97. This jurisdictional limitation extends to the district court’s authority to rule outside that time limit on an otherwise timely-filed Rule 35(a) motion. See United States v. Higgs, 504 F.3d 456, 458–59, 464 (3d Cir. 2007) (concluding that the district court was without jurisdiction to deny a Rule 35(a) motion for reduction of sentence outside the Rule 35(a) time limit, even when the defendant timely filed the Rule 35(a) motion); United States v. Shank, 395 F.3d 466, 470 (4th Cir. 2005) (concluding that, although the defendant filed a Rule 35 motion within the then-seven day limit of Rule 35(a), the district court 15 Case: 11-14051 Date Filed: 06/24/2013 Page: 16 of 19 lacked jurisdiction to deny the motion five months after sentencing). We recognize that Fawcett’s July 19 motion was filed within 14 days of the district court’s July 11 amended judgment. But even if only the July 11 amended judgment started the 14-day clock under Rule 35(a),12 the district court did not act on the July 19 motion until July 26, and at that time the district court lacked jurisdiction to alter Fawcett’s sentence any further. Accordingly, to the extent the district court’s July 26 order denied Fawcett’s July 19 motion to correct his sentence under Rule 35, we affirm the district court’s denial of that motion because the district court lacked jurisdiction, in any event, to grant Rule 35 relief on July 26. Cf. Cani v. United States, 331 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (construing a dismissal as a denial because the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction and should have denied the defendant’s motion on the merits).