United States v. Aguilar-Reyes
653 F.3d 1053
9th Cir.2011Background
- Aguilar-Reyes was arrested in 2008 for illegally transporting aliens and pled guilty to a state charge, receiving probation and deportation.
- In 2009 he was re-arrested in the U.S. for reentry of a removed alien and pled guilty to the federal count, with a PSR treating the 2008 state conviction as an alien-smuggling offense.
- The district court sentenced Aguilar-Reyes in March 2010 to 33 months, applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii) over objection.
- Aguilar-Reyes timely appealed the final judgment, and the government filed a Rule 35(a) motion shortly after sentencing to correct the sentence.
- In March–April 2010 the district court held hearings and entered an amended judgment reducing sentence to time served, prompting the government’s appeal on jurisdiction.
- The Ninth Circuit held that Rule 35(a)’s fourteen-day deadline is jurisdictional and the district court lacked authority to resentence, so the amended judgment is vacated and the original reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 35(a) deadline is jurisdictional | Aguilar-Reyes argued recent decisions render Rule 35(a) non-jurisdictional. | The government sustains jurisdictional view of Rule 35(a). | Rule 35(a) deadline is jurisdictional; district court lacked authority. |
| Whether district court had authority to resentence after 14 days | Court could resentence under Rule 35(a) despite exceeding 14 days. | More than fourteen days had passed, so no jurisdiction to amend. | District court had no jurisdiction to resentence after 14 days. |
| Proper disposition on appeal when jurisdiction deficient | Amended judgment should stand as correction of error. | Correction should be rejected; original sentence reinstated. | Original judgment reinstated; amended judgment vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Penna, 319 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 35(a)14-day deadline is jurisdictional)
- United States v. Miller, 594 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2010) (Rule 35(a) deadline treated as jurisdictional)
- United States v. Griffin, 524 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2008) (Rule 35(a) deadline jurisdictional)
- United States v. Smith, 438 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2006) (Rule 35(a) deadline jurisdictional)
- United States v. Shank, 395 F.3d 466 (4th Cir. 2005) (Rule 35(a) deadline jurisdictional)
- United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1979) (Predecessor rule’s deadline treated as jurisdictional)
- Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc; discusses time-related directives vs jurisdiction)