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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT