United States v. Henderson
646 F.3d 223
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Henderson was convicted and sentenced in the Fifth Circuit case.
- Henderson timely filed a Rule 35(a) motion within the 14-day window after sentencing.
- The district court sought to correct the sentence but ruled it could not grant the motion because the 14-day period had expired.
- Tapia v. United States issued after sentencing and after the Rule 35(a) window, affecting the perceived legality of Henderson's sentence.
- The panel denied Henderson's request for rehearing en banc; a dissent argued the issues warranted full-court consideration.
- The dissent criticized the panel’s handling of Rule 35(a) scope and the timing of plain-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 35(a) can correct legal errors within 14 days | Rule 35(a) permits correction of obvious legal errors within 14 days. | Panel misapplies Rule 35(a) by limiting corrections to non-legal errors or by misreading precedent. | Rehearing en banc denied; unresolved by en banc panel |
| When plain-error is judged for timing (trial vs. appeal) | Plain error should be evaluated at the time of appellate consideration if law clarifies by then; Johnson framework applied. | Plain error timing should be determined based on the law at the time of trial or as later clarified, depending on circuit | Rehearing en banc denied; the timing issue merits full-court consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Watkins, 450 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 2006) (Rule 35(a) preservation of error in sentencing claim)
- United States v. Cook, 890 F.2d 672 (4th Cir. 1989) (sentence correction for unlawful sentence under Rule 35)
- United States v. Rico, 902 F.2d 1065 (2d Cir. 1990) (correction of sentence due to illegal sentence under Rule 35)
- United States v. Ross, 557 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2009) (Rule 35 advisory notes and correction authority)
- Tapia v. United States, U.S. (2011) (clarified impact on sentencing law post-trial)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain-error review when law at appellate time is settled and contrary to trial-time law)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error framework and timing questions)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Aparicio, 648 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2011) (unsettled trial-law vs. appellate-law plain-error analysis)
- United States v. Mouling, 557 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (plain-error timing when law clarified after trial)
- United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 1994) (precedent on plain-error timing under Olano framework)