United States v. Baker
17-3033
| 10th Cir. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- James Baker was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and originally sentenced in 2006 to 235 months imprisonment and three years’ supervised release under the ACCA enhancement.
- After Johnson v. United States, Baker successfully moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the district court reduced his prison term to time served on September 2, 2016, but it reimposed the original three-year supervised-release term.
- Baker filed post-resentencing challenges: a September "Notice of Concerns" (treated as motion and denied), a December motion to modify/vacate supervised release (arguing Guidelines error and asking relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3583), and later appealed the denial of the December motion.
- The Tenth Circuit held Baker’s February 13, 2017 notice of appeal was untimely as to the earlier September/October orders but timely as to the January 30 denial of his December motion, so the court reviewed only the December-motion issues.
- The district court rejected Baker’s Guidelines argument as waived (not raised at sentencing, on direct appeal, or in the § 2255 motion) and denied modification under § 3583 for lack of changed circumstances; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
- Baker also raised several new arguments on appeal (absence at resentencing, § 3282 limitations, and reliance on Mojica) that were not presented below; the court declined to consider them because they were not preserved and Baker did not seek plain-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument (Baker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal / which orders are reviewable | Government: Appeal must be timely; only orders within Rule 4(b) window are reviewable | Baker: Challenges to reimposed supervised release (September/October) and later denial (January) should be reviewable | Court: February notice was too late for Sept/Oct orders but timely for Jan 30 denial; only December-motion issues reviewed |
| Validity of supervised-release reimposition / authority to impose after resentencing | Government: Reimposition was valid; not timely challenged | Baker: Reimposing supervised release exceeded statutory maximum time served and was unauthorized | Court: Timely challenge not made; untimely on appeal, so not considered here |
| Guidelines calculation / waiver of objection | Government: Baker waived Guidelines challenge by not raising at sentencing, on direct appeal, or in § 2255 | Baker: Base offense level should be lower (USSG §2K2.1(b)(2)), which would have led to probation rather than supervised release | Court: Waiver doctrine bars the claim; in any event supervised release appropriate given criminal history; claim rejected |
| Motion to modify supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 | Government: District court has discretion; no basis to modify absent changed circumstances | Baker: Requested modification or vacatur of supervised release under § 3583(e) | Court: Reviewed for abuse of discretion; no changed circumstances shown; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause held unconstitutionally vague)
- Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000) (arguments that could have been raised earlier may be barred in reconsideration)
- United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2011) (tolling of appellate time by timely postjudgment motion)
- United States v. Begay, 631 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for supervised-release modification)
- United States v. Mojica, 214 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2000) (totality-of-circumstances test for lawful sporting-purpose ammunition possession)
- United States v. Chavez-Marquez, 66 F.3d 259 (10th Cir. 1995) (preservation requirement and plain-error review)
- United States v. Alexander, 802 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2015) (appellant must invoke plain-error review to obtain it)