Opinion ID: 68848
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reimposition of Original Sentences

Text: Brown argues that the district court erred in reimposing his original sentences and declining to consider his sentencing arguments in light of this 3 After the resentencing hearing, Brown filed a supplemental memorandum, arguing that the § 851 notice was served improperly on Brown’s counsel by facsimile. 9 Court’s remand in full.4 In similar § 2255 cases where a district court found a defendant was denied his right to a direct appeal, we have instructed that the sentences should be vacated and reimposed to allow a timely appeal, as follows: When the district courts of this circuit conclude that an out-of-time appeal in a criminal case is warranted as the remedy in a § 2255 proceeding, they should effect that remedy in the following way: (1) the criminal judgment from which the out-of-time appeal is to be permitted should be vacated; (2) the same sentence should then be reimposed; (3) upon reimposition of that sentence, the defendant should be advised of all the rights associated with an appeal from any criminal sentence; and (4) the defendant should also be advised that the time for filing a notice of appeal from that re-imposed sentence is ten days, which is dictated by [Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure] 4(b)(1)(A)(i). United States v. Phillips, 225 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2000). In following this Phillips procedure, a district court is not required to hold a resentencing hearing. United States v. Parrish, 427 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, after finding that Brown was entitled to an out-of-time direct appeal, the district court properly followed the Phillips procedure by reimposing Brown’s original sentences to allow that direct appeal. Brown also argues that this Court’s remand permitted the district court to consider any sentencing issue anew. Brown relies on United States v. Jones, 36 F.3d 1068, 1069-70 (11th Cir. 1994), where the district court was allowed to 4 We review de novo questions of law, including a district court’s determination regarding the scope of its legal authority. United States v. Martinez, 241 F.3d 1329, 1330 (11th Cir. 2001). 10 consider the defendant’s drug quantity challenge on remand. Jones, however, involved the district court’s authority to consider sentencing issues after this Court had vacated the defendant’s sentence on direct appeal and remanded in full to the district court. Id. In contrast, our remand here came on appeal of the denial of Brown’s § 2255 motion. This Court did not vacate Brown’s original sentences. Rather, we remanded to the district court, on request by the government, for an evidentiary hearing on Brown’s § 2255 claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal. Because the procedural posture of this case was akin to Phillips, not Jones, the district court properly followed the Phillips procedure after awarding Brown an out-of-time direct appeal.