United States v. Derrek Arrington
412 U.S. App. D.C. 143
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Arrington was convicted in 2000 of assaulting a federal officer (18 U.S.C. §111(b)) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §922(g)); each count then carried a 10‑year statutory maximum. The district court sentenced him to 20 years (treating two 10‑year terms as consecutive) and imposed two consecutive 3‑year terms of supervised release (total 6 years).
- Arrington did not raise these sentencing issues on direct appeal or in his initial §2255 motion; this court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.
- After an unsuccessful §2255 petition, Arrington filed a Rule 60(b) motion (civil) and, later, a Rule 36 motion (criminal) seeking correction: (1) that the court should have explicitly stated it was imposing consecutive 10‑year imprisonments, and (2) that supervised release terms must run concurrently, not consecutively.
- The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion (noting civil rules do not apply to criminal cases / improper vehicle) and denied Rule 36 relief (holding the sentencing choice was not a clerical error but an intentional judicial decision).
- The government conceded that consecutive supervised‑release terms were legally erroneous, but argued Rule 36 was not the proper vehicle; it suggested the district court could consider early termination under 18 U.S.C. §3583(e)(1) after one year of supervised release.
- On appeal the D.C. Circuit: dismissed the appeal as to the Rule 60(b) denial for lack of jurisdiction (no certificate of appealability; motion tantamount to successive §2255), affirmed denial of Rule 36 relief (not a clerical error), and rejected use of 28 U.S.C. §2106 to alter the sentence; noted §3583(e)(1) as post‑release remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arrington's Rule 60(b) motion may be reviewed on appeal | Rule 60(b) may reopen judgment to correct sentencing defects (imposition of consecutive terms / failure to state intent) | Civil Rule 60(b) does not apply to criminal cases; motion is in substance a successive §2255 requiring COA / preauthorization | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: Rule 60(b) construed as successive §2255; no certificate of appealability or §2255(h) authorization obtained |
| Whether Rule 36 permits correction of consecutive supervised‑release terms | The consecutive supervised‑release language is a clerical error that can be fixed by amending the judgment | Rule 36 corrects only clerical/transcription errors, not deliberate judicial sentencing choices | Affirmed denial: sentencing reflected the court’s intent; not a clerical error; Rule 36 not available |
| Whether this court may invoke 28 U.S.C. §2106 to modify sentence or supervised‑release terms on appeal | §2106 authorizes appellate courts to modify or remand and should be used to correct the erroneous supervised‑release and possibly remand for resentencing | Using §2106 here would bypass Congress’s gatekeeping for successive §2255 motions and improperly circumvent §2255(h) | Rejected: §2106 cannot be used to circumvent statutory limits on successive collateral relief; cannot reduce sentence or change supervised‑release terms on this basis |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arrington, 309 F.3d 40 (D.C. Cir.) (direct appeal affirming conviction and sentence)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) motions that attack the substance of a conviction are in substance habeas and subject to habeas restrictions)
- Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (liberal construction of pro se filings in post‑conviction context)
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (limits on appellate authority to alter certain components of criminal judgments)
- United States v. Penna, 319 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 36 may not be used to correct judicial sentencing errors)
- United States v. Burd, 86 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 1996) (discussed §2106 use after sentencing error; court declined to extend that approach here)