United States v. Luna-Acosta
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9054
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Luna-Acosta appeals a district court judgment imposing 33 months’ imprisonment, five months after the court orally announced 12 months.
- Defendant pleaded guilty under a fast-track program with a government-downward departure and a broad appeal waiver in the plea agreement.
- PSR calculations yielded 18 offense level, producing a guideline range of 33–41 months, higher than Luna-Acosta expected from the plea
- At the October 19, 2011 hearing, the court imposed 33 months’ imprisonment and 2 years’ supervised release; it later moved to 12 months at a November 16, 2011 hearing.
- A written judgment on April 26, 2012 again imposed 33 months with no supervised release, prompting Luna-Acosta’s appeal.
- The district court later reasoned it lacked Rule 35(a) jurisdiction to modify the sentence after November 16, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate waiver forecloses this appeal | Luna-Acosta argues waiver bars appeals on modifications | Government contends waiver controls all sentencing challenges | Appeal not within waiver; jurisdiction to review under Vega-Meza approach |
| When does Rule 35(a) attach to the oral sentence | Rule 35(a) applies to post-sentencing modifications after finality | Court argues first sentence finalized October 19, 2011 | Oral sentence not final until end of second hearing; Rule 35(a) jurisdiction extends to that point |
| Whether the November 16, 2011 sentence (12 months) was within the court’s jurisdiction | Courts may modify within the same proceeding before finality | Modification would violate Rule 35(a) if not within time | District court had jurisdiction to impose the 12-month sentence at the second hearing |
| Whether the April 26, 2012 written judgment violated Rule 35(a) | No Rule 35(a) jurisdiction to modify after 11/16/2011 | Judgment correctly reflected final sentence | District court lacked Rule 35(a) jurisdiction to modify; judgment vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vega, 241 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2001) (appellate waiver scope governs jurisdictional questions about sentence)
- United States v. Meza, 620 F.3d 505 (5th Cir. 2010) (formal break standard for finality of sentence under Rule 35(a))
- United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2012) (supports Meza approach to finality and jurisdiction)
- Burgos-Andújar v. United States, 275 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2001) (initial sentence formulation can be tentative where proper context exists)
- United States v. Townsend, 33 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 1994) (sentencing involves oral announcement protected by Sixth Amendment)
- United States v. McGaughy, 670 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2012) (Rule 35(a) time-barrier is jurisdictional)
- United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (appellate waiver interpretation in Rule 35 context)