United States v. Charmar Brown, 915 F.3d 1200

Background

In 2007 a jury convicted Charmar Brown of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute large quantities of marijuana and three firearm counts; the district court orally sentenced him to 480 months on count 6 but a written judgment erroneously listed life on count 6.
This court vacated one firearm conviction on direct appeal and the district court later removed that sentence; Brown did not appeal the resentencing order removing count 7.
Brown filed multiple 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions; earlier motions were denied and treated as successive where appellate authorization was lacking.
In response to Brown’s later filings, this court directed the district court to correct the written judgment to reflect the oral 480-month sentence on count 6; the district court entered a Second Amended Judgment accordingly.
Brown appealed the Second Amended Judgment as a substantive new sentence and sought to raise additional challenges; the district court treated the correction as a clerical amendment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Second Amended Judgment created a new, intervening sentence so a § 2255 challenge would not be "second or successive"	Brown: correcting the written judgment to 480 months was a substantive change/new judgment permitting a non-successive § 2255	Government/District Court: the oral pronouncement (480 months) was the operative sentence; the amendment merely corrected a clerical error in the written judgment	Held: No new sentence; the oral sentence controlled and the amendment was a clerical correction, so later § 2255 claims are successive and barred without authorization
Whether Rule 35(a) authorized the late correction	Brown implied the correction altered sentence; district court invoked Rule 35(a)	Government: Rule 35(a) does not permit corrections after 14 days; correction is properly under Rule 36	Held: Rule 35(a) was inapplicable because the correction occurred years later; Rule 36 (clerical correction) authorized the change
Whether an amended clerical judgment changes the § 2255 "second or successive" calculus	Brown: corrected written judgment creates an intervening judgment for § 2255 purposes	Government: typographical/clerical fixes do not create a new judgment for § 2255	Held: Clerical correction does not substantively alter the sentence; § 2255 motion filed after such correction is still successive
Whether the district court’s Second Amended Judgment should be affirmed	Brown: appealed the judgment and raised additional substantive claims	Government: judgment should be affirmed because oral sentence controlled and correction was clerical	Held: Affirmed the Second Amended Judgment

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Brown, 560 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2009) (prior direct-appeal disposition of related convictions)
United States v. Sellner, 773 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for whether a motion is "second or successive")
Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010) (a new intervening judgment negates "second or successive" treatment)
Dyab v. United States, 855 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2017) (applies Magwood inquiry to § 2255 and distinguishes clerical corrections)
Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211 (1937) ("the sentence is the judgment")
United States v. Tramp, 30 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 1994) (oral pronouncement is the court's judgment)
United States v. Mayo, 642 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2011) (when oral sentence and written judgment conflict, oral controls)
United States v. Price, 851 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2017) (appellate courts may affirm for any reason supported by the record)
United States v. Medina-Mora, 796 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2015) (Rule 35(a) does not permit corrections after 14 days)
United States v. Winfield, 665 F.3d 107 (4th Cir. 2012) (Rule 35(a) does not authorize amending a sentence months later)
Marmolejos v. United States, 789 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2015) (clerical corrections under Rule 36 do not create a new judgment for § 2255 purposes)