Opinion ID: 2999070
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: District Court’s Remand Order

Text: Davis challenges the district court’s order on April 29, 2005, remanding her into custody. The government contends—without citation—that we have no jurisdiction to consider the issue because the remand order is not part of Davis’s judgment of conviction or her sentence. The government alternatively asserts that the issue is moot. The government would be correct if Davis were seeking outright release, but she is not. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) (granting independent avenue of appeal for custody orders). Davis argues the alleged erroneous remand order had a measurable effect upon issues which are subject to our jurisdiction. Davis claims that the remand order effectively constituted the imposition of a sentence without calculating the Guideline range, denying her purported rights of allocution and surrender, which is sufficient for our jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). Central to Davis’s claim is her characterization of the district court’s April 29 remand to custody order as a “sentence” rather than a mere revocation of bail. The right of allocution must be afforded prior to imposition of a sentence, but it does not accrue earlier. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A). The same is true of the court’s duty to calculate the Guideline range. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 264 (2005) (“The district courts, while not bound to 8 No. 05-2489 apply the Guidelines, must consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing.”) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). When the court ordered Davis be taken into custody on April 29, it did so contemplating Davis’s return for the conclusion of her sentencing. Although the district court did not use the words “revocation of bail,” that is what the court did by remanding Davis into custody as it was required to do. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) (creating a post-conviction presumption of detention pending sentencing). Hence, Davis’s right of allocution and the court’s duty to consult the Guidelines were not at stake on April 29 because the court’s incarceration order did not amount to a “sentence.”1 Id.