Opinion ID: 786967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Standing Order and This Litigation

Text: 12 On May 9, 2003, [i]n view of the new reporting requirements in the PROTECT Act of 2003, the Chief Judge for the District of Montana issued the Standing Order at issue here. It contains four directives: 13 1. After sentencing in each case, the United States Attorney shall assemble a Report of Sentence that includes the following documents: 14 (a) a cover page setting forth the sentence, the offense or offenses for which it was imposed, the age, race, and sex of the offender, and all adjustments and departures actually applied in fashioning the sentence; 15 (b) a copy of the judgment and commitment order; 16 (c) a copy of the Court's statement of reasons for the sentence imposed; 17 (d) a copy of any plea agreement; 18 (e) a copy of each ... charging document filed in the case ...; and 19 (f) a copy of the presentence report. 20 2. Within twenty days after sentencing in each case, the United States Attorney shall present to the Clerk of Court, Missoula Division, two copies of the cover page along with the remainder of the Report of Sentence. 21 3. The Clerk of Court shall mail the Report of Sentence to the Sentencing Commission. 22 4. In the event a Report of Sentence is not presented within twenty days after sentencing, the Clerk of Court shall report the deficiency to the attention of the Chief Judge. 23 Also on May 9, 2003, a judgment of conviction was entered in the criminal case of United States v. Victoria L. Ray, No. CR-02-0005-DWM, in the District of Montana. Rather than assemble and file a report of the sentence imposed in that case, pursuant to the Standing Order, the United States Attorney filed a Motion to Set Aside the Standing Order (or, in the alternative, to stay enforcement of the Standing Order pending appellate review). 3 24 After a hearing before the District of Montana's three active judges, the district court denied the motion to set aside the Standing Order. 4 In its order dated July 29, 2003 (July 29 order), the court explained that, because the District of Montana consists of five dispersed divisions and has no central hub, the Standing Order was the most efficient way to comply with the statutory reporting requirement. The court held that the Standing Order did not conflict with the PROTECT Act, did not exceed the court's authority, and did not violate the Constitution. On August 1, 2003, the United States appealed from the July 29 order and, alternatively, petitioned for a writ of mandamus. 5