United States v. Joseph Cannon
719 F.3d 889
8th Cir.2013Background
- Joseph B. Cannon was convicted in 2008 of unlawful possession of a firearm and began supervised release on December 22, 2011.
- Cannon admitted a supervised-release violation for a March 9, 2012 misdemeanor assault; the advisory revocation range was 7–13 months under the Guidelines.
- On March 12, 2013, the district court revoked release and sentenced Cannon to 12 months’ imprisonment with no additional supervised release.
- The court later learned the BOP would likely credit Cannon for ~12 months of pretrial state custody under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(2), which would cause immediate release; the court then entered an amended judgment stating “time served plus 12 months.”
- At a second hearing the court said it had intended Cannon to serve 12 months beginning on the original sentencing date, and resentenced him to 24 months, citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a); Cannon objected.
- The Eighth Circuit held the district court lacked authority under Rule 35(a) to increase the sentence and vacated the second amended judgment, ordering reinstatement of the original 12-month judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Cannon's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could amend a sentence after imposition to increase it based on its intent about when the sentence should run | Court lacked authority to change the original sentence; resentencing to 24 months was improper | Rule 35(a) permits correcting “other clear error” to conform the judgment to the court’s intended sentence | The court may not use Rule 35(a) to change a sentence merely because of a mistaken expectation about BOP credit; the increase was unauthorized |
| Whether the original sentence contained a correctable clear error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) | The original sentence was final and correct; no legal error required correction | The court intended a different operative sentence date, so the judgment reflected a clear error in failing to effect that intent | Rule 35(a) is narrow and does not cover reinterpretation or changing mind about sentence timing; no clear error existed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sadler, 234 F.3d 368 (8th Cir. 2000) (describing narrow scope of Rule 35(a) and that it covers errors likely to be remanded)
- United States v. Waters, 84 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1996) (discussing district court awareness of guideline policy statements on credit for time served)
- Wilson v. United States, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) (BOP duty to award credit for time spent in official detention)