United States v. Brian Brim
671 F. App'x 664
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Brian Keith Brim, a federal inmate, was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture PCP under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- The sentencing judgment also imposed a 10-year term of supervised release to be served if Brim is ever released.
- Brim filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence and later a Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of that § 2255 motion.
- The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion; a certificate of appealability was issued as to whether the sentence was ambiguous for imposing both life imprisonment and supervised release.
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether the dual imposition was ambiguous or contradictory and whether it reflected judicial confusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing to life imprisonment plus a 10-year supervised release is ambiguous or contradictory | Brim: imposing life and supervised release is ambiguous/contradictory because life implies no release | Government: statute and Guidelines require supervised release be imposed when statute mandates or imprisonment >1 year; sentence is not ambiguous | Court: Not ambiguous; statutory and Guidelines support both terms |
| Whether the sentence reflects district court confusion | Brim: transcript shows confusion when imposing sentence | Government: transcript does not show confusion; term is statutory | Court: Transcript does not show confusion; sentence valid |
| Whether supervised release can be imposed when sentence is life | Brim: implies supervised release is moot if life means no release | Government: supervised release is routinely imposed and required by statute in recidivist cases | Court: Supervised release may be imposed and is required by statute in this context |
| Jurisdictional question re: sua sponte ambiguity raised in COA order | Brim: (implicit) challenges to proceedings | Government: questioned district court jurisdiction to raise ambiguity sua sponte | Court: Did not decide jurisdictional question; resolved merits instead |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 568 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.) (noting sentence of life imprisonment and ten years supervised release)
- United States v. Vance, 764 F.3d 667 (7th Cir.) (observing supervised-release conditions are routinely imposed in life-sentence cases)
- United States v. Rodríguez-Berríos, 573 F.3d 55 (1st Cir.) (noting supervised release terms following life sentences are not uncommon)
- Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722 (9th Cir.) (merits panels need not examine allegedly defective COAs when jurisdictional challenges arise)