United States v. McGaughy
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4102
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- McGaughy pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana; district court imposed 46 months.
- Post-sentencing, McGaughy challenged effectiveness of counsel at sentencing via §2255 and requested re-sentencing.
- The district court vacated and re-sentenced after informal joint agreement to grant relief; it then dismissed the §2255 motion as moot.
- McGaughy later challenged the re-sentencing via Rule 35(a) and a second §2255 motion.
- Rule 35(a) allows correction within 14 days after sentencing; the district court delayed ruling beyond the 14 days.
- Court held the 14-day Rule 35(a) limit is jurisdictional and precludes action after 14 days; second §2255 deemed procedurally defaulted while district court had jurisdiction to re-sentence
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court regained jurisdiction to re-sentence. | McGaughy; district court effectively granted §2255 relief via re-sentencing. | Government; no formal grant of §2255 occurred; re-sentencing invalidates jurisdiction. | District court did have jurisdiction to re-sentence despite no explicit grant. |
| Whether Rule 35(a) claim was timely and within jurisdiction. | Rule 35(a) timing was met; jurisdictional limit should not bar review. | Rule 35(a) time limit is jurisdictional; court lost jurisdiction after the deadline. | Rule 35(a)’s 14-day limit is jurisdictional; court lacked jurisdiction to rule past the limit. |
| Whether McGaughy’s second §2255 was procedurally defaulted. | Second §2255 relates to new sentence; not barred if properly raised. | Failure to raise on direct appeal bars §2255 unless cause/prejudice or miscarriage. | Second §2255 procedurally defaulted; no miscarriage shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. United States, 373 F.2d 334 (U.S. 1963) (jurisdictional grant triggers review after relief granted or denied)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (time limits for review can be jurisdictional when Congress intends)
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (S. Ct. 2012) (text, context, and history determine jurisdictional nature of time limits)
- Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (U.S. 2005) (Rule 33 time limit not jurisdictional; only claims-processing)
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (S. Ct. 2012) (see above)
- Green v. United States, 405 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2005) (Rule 35(a) time limit treated as jurisdictional by circuit)
- United States v. Hammer, 564 F.3d 628 (3d Cir. 2009) (treatment of §2255 relief as grant via re-sentencing)
- United States v. Stitt, 459 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 2006) (support for jurisdictional Rule 35 time limits)
- Higgs, 504 F.3d 456 (3d Cir. 2007) (Rule 35(a) jurisdictional due to statutory incorporation)
- Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334 (U.S. 1963) (foundation for when relief determines jurisdiction)