Opinion ID: 2656165
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Right to Counsel at Resentencing

Text: Cano’s last argument regarding the amended judgment is that his due process rights were violated because he was not represented by counsel during the judgment amendment proceedings, which he characterizes as a “resentencing.” However, when a resentencing is purely a ministerial act, with no discretion given to the sentencing judge, the absence of counsel is not prejudicial. Hall v. Moore, 253 F.3d 624, 627 (11th Cir. 2001). Cano’s sentence was not set aside in its entirety and the corrections made in the amended judgment were purely ministerial acts of conforming the written judgment to the underlying proceedings. Even as to the vacatur of Count 13, the district court was acting upon the mandate of this Court, which required dismissing the unsupported Count, not resentencing, and otherwise affirmed Cano’s convictions and sentence. Cano, 289 F.3d at 1367 (holding that “the district court’s judgment against Cano on Count 13 is VACATED, and the district court is directed to dismiss the count[, and that] 9 Case: 12-16202 Date Filed: 03/11/2014 Page: 10 of 11 Appellants’ convictions and sentences are otherwise AFFIRMED.”); see also Litman v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 825 F.2d 1506, 1511 (11th Cir. 1987) (“When an appellate court issues a specific mandate it is not subject to interpretation; the district court has an obligation to carry out the order.”). Neither did Cano have a right to be present for the correction to the judgment. See United States v. Jackson, 923 F.2d 1494, 1497 (11th Cir. 1991) (“[W]here the entire sentencing package has not been set aside, a correction of an illegal sentence does not constitute a resentencing requiring the presence of the defendant, so long as the modification does not make the sentence more onerous.”). We therefore affirm on these grounds.