United States v. Hall, 661 F.3d 320

Hall pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug offense in exchange for dismissal of other counts.
Presentence Report calculated guidelines of 262–327 months with a 120-month mandatory minimum on Count 2 and 60-month minimum on Count 4, to run consecutively.
February 5, 2010: district court orally sentenced Hall to 156 months on Count 2 and 60 months on Count 4, total 216 months; judgment was not entered at that time.
February 9, 2010: district court scheduled a resentencing hearing; court expressed a desire to resentence Count 2 to 120 months based on prior conversations.
March 1, 2010: district court entered judgment reimposing the 120 months on Count 2 and 60 months on Count 4, to run consecutively.
Government timely appealed contending the district court lacked authority to resentence under Rule 35; Hall did not challenge the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to resentence under Rule 35	Government argues Rule 35 lacks jurisdiction beyond 14 days; resentencing was beyond the time limit.	Hall argues Rule 35; initial sentence could be corrected as a 'conditional sentence' within time.	District court lacked jurisdiction to resentence beyond 14 days; vacate and remand.
Whether the original sentence was a conditional sentence enabling later entry	Government contends no conditional sentence was intended; Rule 35 time limits apply.	Hall relies on Garcia to argue a conditional sentence was entered first and final sentence later.	No clear demonstration of a conditional sentence; requires vacating and remand per Rule 35 limits.

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court 2007) (statutory time limits generally jurisdictional)
United States v. Vicol, 460 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2006) (Rule 35 time limit jurisdictional; cannot resentence after period)
United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of Rule 35 issues)