McBride v. United States
19-CO-1128 & 19-CO-1129
| D.C. | Aug 5, 2021Background
- Oliver McBride pleaded guilty under Superior Court Crim. R. 11(c)(1)(C) to assault with a dangerous weapon and to possession of an unregistered firearm; the court accepted the plea and imposed the parties’ agreed sentence (30 months imprisonment + 3 years supervised release for the assault; time served for the firearm) and ordered immediate custody.
- McBride was transferred to the Bureau of Prisons and, within the Rule 35(b) time window, filed a motion to reduce his sentence to home confinement, citing the BOP’s inability to meet his significant medical needs that arose after sentencing.
- The trial judge denied the Rule 35(b) motion in a brief order, stating the court was bound by the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreed sentence and could not modify it.
- McBride appealed, arguing Rule 35(b) authorizes a post‑sentencing reduction of an 11(c)(1)(C) sentence in exceptional circumstances (e.g., post‑sentencing information that makes the agreed sentence plainly unjust).
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the legal question de novo but dismissed the appeal as moot because McBride had been released from BOP custody, rendering the requested relief (early release/home confinement) impossible and unnecessary; the court therefore declined to resolve the underlying Rule 11/35 conflict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 35(b) permits a trial court to reduce a sentence imposed under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) based on post‑sentencing, exceptional circumstances | McBride: Yes — Rule 35(b) allows reduction where post‑sentencing information renders the agreed sentence plainly unjust or unfair | Government/Trial court: No — a binding 11(c)(1)(C) sentence cannot be reduced by the sentencing court under Rule 35(b) | Court did not decide on the merits; appeal dismissed as moot |
| Whether the appeal should proceed despite mootness because the issue is important and likely to recur yet evade review | McBride: The question is significant and recurring given frequent use of 11(c)(1)(C) pleas | Government/Amicus: McBride’s release moots requested relief; discretion favors dismissal | Court exercised discretion to dismiss as moot, finding the circumstances did not justify reaching the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (explaining that a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement is intended to bind the court to the agreed sentence)
- United States v. Semler, 883 F.2d 832 (9th Cir. 1989) (post‑sentencing information that renders an agreed sentence plainly unjust can justify a Rule 35(b) reduction)
- Ramos v. United States, 569 A.2d 158 (D.C. 1990) (noting pre‑1987 federal Rule 35(b) parallels local rule and can inform local construction)
- Walden v. United States, 366 A.2d 1075 (D.C. 1976) (describing Rule 35(b) as a post‑sentencing plea for leniency addressed to the sentencing court’s discretion)
- Settlemire v. District of Columbia Office of Emp. Appeals, 898 A.2d 902 (D.C. 2006) (release or other events that make relief impossible render an appeal moot)