989 F.3d 646
8th Cir.2021Background
- Alicia Mofle pleaded guilty in 2012 to drug offenses and was sentenced in 2013 after a downward variance to 168 months’ imprisonment.
- Amendment 782 (Nov. 1, 2014) reduced many drug-offense guideline levels by two levels and was made retroactive.
- The original sentencing judge sua sponte denied Mofle a § 3582(c)(2) reduction on March 3, 2015; Mofle did not appeal that order.
- Mofle filed a pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion on Nov. 2, 2015; the judge denied it on Jan. 6, 2016, and this court summarily affirmed the denial on appeal.
- In July 2019 Mofle (through counsel) filed another § 3582(c)(2) motion raising an alleged error in the sua sponte order; the Government argued the motion was jurisdictionally barred or untimely.
- Chief Judge Strand (sitting after the original judge retired) denied the 2019 motion as untimely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b); the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mofle’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether second or successive § 3582(c)(2) motions based on the same amendment are jurisdictionally barred | No—Congress did not clearly make such a limit jurisdictional; courts retain jurisdiction | Argued there may be a jurisdictional bar to repeat § 3582(c)(2) motions | No jurisdictional bar; Sebelius presumption applies and other circuits agree |
| Whether the 2019 motion was untimely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) because it was, in substance, a motion for reconsideration of prior denials | The 2019 filing raised a new alleged error and therefore was not simply a reconsideration subject to the appeal deadline | The 2019 motion presented the same legal question as prior orders and thus is a motion for reconsideration in substance and must meet Rule 4(b)’s 14‑day appeal timeframe | Untimely—treated as a motion for reconsideration and filed well beyond Rule 4(b)’s deadline |
| Whether the Government forfeited its Rule 4(b) timeliness defense | Government waited too long and thus forfeited the defense | Government raised Rule 4(b) promptly in district-court opposition | No forfeiture—the Government timely preserved the Rule 4(b) argument |
| Whether enforcing Rule 4(b) violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 57(b) | Enforcement of a non-statutory timing requirement violated Rule 57(b) protections | Rule 4(b) is a federal rule, so enforcing it does not run afoul of Rule 57(b) | No violation—Rule 4(b) is a federal rule and may be enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145 (courts should treat limitations as nonjurisdictional unless Congress clearly states otherwise)
- United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706 (holding no jurisdictional bar to second § 3582(c)(2) motions)
- United States v. Green, 886 F.3d 1300 (same)
- United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238 (motion for reconsideration of a § 3582(c)(2) order must be filed within the appeal period)
- United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233 (treating a second § 3582(c)(2) motion presenting the same legal question as a motion for reconsideration)
- United States v. Campbell, 971 F.3d 772 (Rule 4(b) timeliness requirements are inflexible)
- Lee v. United States, 501 F.2d 494 (jurisdiction is the threshold issue to decide)
- BBCA, Inc. v. United States, 954 F.2d 1429 (substance of a motion, not form, controls applicable filing deadlines)