United States v. Charles Bentil, 677 F. App'x 877

Charles Bentil had supervised release revoked; at revocation hearing the district court orally pronounced a 10‑day imprisonment term (to run consecutive to any state sentence) and entered a written judgment reflecting 10 days.
Fourteen days later the district court sua sponte held a resentencing, stating it had intended to impose 10 months, not 10 days, and concluded the 10‑day sentence was an obvious mistake.
The court resentenced Bentil to 10 months under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). Bentil timely appealed the court’s authority to resentence.
The Government argued the 10‑day term was procedurally unreasonable and that Rule 35(a) permitted correction; the court below characterized the error as clear rather than arithmetical.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Rule 35(a) authorized correction and whether the 10‑day sentence was the kind of “clear error” that would have been almost certainly reversed on appeal.
The Court vacated the amended judgment and remanded with instructions to reinstate the original 10‑day sentence, concluding Rule 35(a) did not permit the district court’s resentencing.

Issue	Bentil's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the district court could correct the sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a)	Rule 35(a) did not authorize correction because the record did not show a clear or obvious error at the original sentencing	The 10‑day sentence was procedurally unreasonable; Rule 35(a) permits correction of clear error and the court would have remanded for resentencing	Court held Rule 35(a) did not authorize correction; the record did not show the sort of clear error that would almost certainly have led to reversal
Whether the original 10‑day revocation sentence was so procedurally unreasonable that it would be almost certain to be reversed on appeal	The 10‑day sentence was within the district court’s broad discretion on revocation and not plainly unreasonable	The Government contended it would have been vacated as procedurally unreasonable (or was arithmetical/technical error)	Court held the 10‑day sentence was not clearly reversible: district court considered Guidelines and §3553(a) factors and deference to revocation sentences applied; plain‑error review would also have favored the Government only uncertainly

United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233 (4th Cir.) (finality principle: court may not modify sentence once imposed absent limited exceptions)
United States v. Fields, 552 F.3d 401 (4th Cir.) (Rule 35(a) narrow; correction limited to obvious errors that would almost certainly lead to remand)
United States v. Fraley, 988 F.2d 4 (4th Cir.) (Rule 35(a) correction standard requires errors that would almost certainly result in remand)
United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263 (4th Cir.) (de novo review of Rule 35(a) jurisdiction)
United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir.) (broad district court discretion on revocation sentencing; affirm if within statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable)
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652 (4th Cir.) (deferential review for revocation sentences)
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir.) (apply general procedural and substantive considerations when reviewing revocation sentences)
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir.) (court must provide statement of reasons for revocation sentence, though less detailed than post‑conviction sentences)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain error test components)
United States v. Blatstein, 482 F.3d 725 (4th Cir.) (government entitled to protection of its substantial rights under plain‑error review)