ILNews

7th Circuit first to decide on resentencing, procedural rule issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled on an issue that hasn’t been addressed by any of its counterparts nationwide, finding that sentencing guidelines revised three years ago still only give District judges one chance to modify penalties based on a federal criminal rule of procedure.

In its decision today in U.S.A. v. Timothy Redd, No. 09-3799, the appellate panel affirmed a ruling by U.S. Judge Theresa L. Springmann in the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.

Redd was convicted in 2005 of distributing crack cocaine and sentenced to 405 months in prison. After an amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in 2008 retroactively lowered the sentencing range for those offenses, Redd received a modified 327 months.

Though he didn’t appeal, Redd waited 10 months to file what he described as a motion asking for the judge to reconsider the modification. Since that document didn’t meet the federal rules for being a motion for reconsideration, it, in effect, has to be viewed as a new motion for a lower sentence based on the Sentencing Guideline changes known as Amendment 712.

Since a reduction had already been ordered once under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), the 7th Circuit held that Judge Springmann can’t again modify the sentence under that statutory requirement because this isn’t a full resentencing. Instead, Redd’s request must be governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 that allows for two exceptions in sentence reducing based on either a technical or clear error within 14 days or by prosecutor’s motion.

“Redd treats §3582(c)(2) as if it countermanded the basic determinate-sentence system and bestowed on district judges a continuing power to adjust sentences – a power that would last indefinitely, unlike the older system limiting that power to 120 days after the final appellate decision,” Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote. “Neither the text of §3582(c)(2) nor the language of Amendment 712 suggests that prisoners are entitled to more than one opportunity to request a lower sentence, for any given change in the Guideline range. Once the district judge makes a decision, Rule 35 applies and curtails any further power of revisions, unless the Commission again changes the Guidelines and makes that change, too, retroactive.”

Only the 11th Circuit has previously addressed this general subject in a published opinion, holding that the doctrine of law in the case usually forecloses successive requests for lower sentences. But that ruling in 1997 was before these newest sentencing changes and didn’t address Rule 35, making this decision by the 7th Circuit the first to address the specific issue.

“We think it is best to stick with a statute rather than apply a common-law doctrine such as law of the case,” Judge Easterbrook wrote, with Judges Richard Posner and Diane Wood joining.

The opinion lets Redd’s time for reconsideration or appeal of Judge Springmann’s resentencing expire without action, and says that he can’t use a new §3582(c)(2) motion to obtain a fresh decision or take what amounts to a belated appeal of the original decision.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT