Court Opinion

ID: 9487253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:11:54.177129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:10.168987
License: Public Domain

McKAY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I agree with the court that the term “imposition of sentence” as used in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure means the time when the court orally pronounces sentence from the bench. However, I believe the result in this case is dictated by an additional principle. I do not believe the court can do what it did here even within the seven-day period provided by Rule 35(c). The Committee Notes accompanying the 1991 amend*1232ment of subdivision (c) make clear that Congress, on the recommendation of the Federal Courts Study Committee, has rejected the rationale of United States v. Smith, 929 F.2d 1453, 1457 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 146, 116 L.Ed.2d 112 (1991), and United States v. Earley, 816 F.2d 1428, 1433-34 (10th Cir.1987), to the extent that those cases suggested that the court’s power of correction was for any reason. The Committee has made that abundantly clear when it said:
The authority to correct a sentence under this subdivision is intended to be very narrow and to extend only to those cases in which an obvious error or mistake has occurred in the sentence, that is, errors which would almost certainly result in a remand of the case to the trial court for further action under Rule 35(a). The subdivision is not intended to afford the court the opportunity to reconsider the application or interpretation of the sentencing guidelines or for the court simply to change its mind about the appropriateness of the sentence. Nor should it be used to reopen issues previously resolved at the sentencing hearing through the exercise of the court’s discretion with regard to the application of the sentencing guidelines.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 35, Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules — 1991 Amendment, 18 U.S.C.App. 856 (Supp. IV 1992).
The Committee Notes drive the final nail in the coffin of those erroneous cases when discussing the rejection of a proposed 120-day rule “based on new factual information not known to the defendant at the time of sentencing.” Id. The Committee said:
Unlike the proposed subdivision (c) which addresses obvious technical mistakes, the ability of the defendant (and perhaps the government) to come forward with new evidence would be a significant step toward returning Rule 35 to its former state. The Committee believed that such a change would inject into Rule 35 a degree of postsentencing discretion which would raise doubts about the finality of determinate sentencing that Congress attempted to resolve by eliminating former Rule 35(a). It would also tend to confuse the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals in those cases in which a timely appeal is taken with respect to the sentence.
Id. Thus, Congress has made clear that “other clear error” as used in the Rule does not contemplate reassessment of the evidence or reassessment of the applicable guidelines, or allow the - court to “change its mind about the appropriateness of the sentence.” Thus, I believe the Committee has put an end to the mischief created by the misinterpretation of dicta in United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 134, 101 S.Ct. 426, 435, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980).
Lest any negative implication be drawn from these comments, I hasten to add that the Committee has also made clear that the seven-day rule contained in subdivision (c) does not bar a defendant detained pursuant to an illegal sentence from seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after the seven-day period provided in Rule 35(c) has elapsed.