United States v. Medina-Mora
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13694
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Medina-Mora was sentenced in 2009 for unlawful reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2) while serving undischarged Illinois state sentences.
- In open court the judge orally pronounced a concurrent 77-month term; the written judgment did not mention concurrency.
- BOP treated the federal sentence as consecutive due to the written judgment's silence, delaying credit toward the federal term.
- Medina-Mora moved under Rule 36 to correct the clerical error; the district court denied, finding the word 'concurrent' was an error in intent.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding the oral pronouncement controls if unambiguous and the written judgment is a nullity.
- The court directed the clerk to amend the judgment to reflect concurrency with the undischarged state sentences and to notify the BOP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does an unambiguous oral sentence control over a conflicting written judgment? | Medina-Mora: oral sentence governs. | United States: written judgment can reflect a different intention. | Yes; oral pronouncement controls when unambiguous. |
| May Rule 36 correct a clerical error that conflicts with an unambiguous oral sentence? | Medina-Mora: Rule 36 permits correction to align with oral sentence. | United States: correction limited by district court’s intent. | Yes; Rule 36 permits correction of clerical error. |
| Did the district court err by relying on its subjective post-sentence intentions under Rule 35(a)? | Medina-Mora: the court’s intent is irrelevant after the Rule 36 correction window. | United States: the court’s intent can justify correction delays. | Yes; district court erred; subjective intent cannot justify withholding correction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alburay, 415 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2005) (oral sentence controls when unambiguous)
- United States v. Bonanno, 146 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 1998) (conflict between oral and written judgments noted)
- United States v. Becker, 36 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 1994) (Rule 35(a) limits corrections after sentence)
- United States v. Weathers, 631 F.3d 560 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (ambiguity may be resolved with entire record)
- United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir. 1987) (en banc; concurrent/consecutive issues in context)
- United States v. Cephus, 684 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2012) (entire record may be considered to resolve ambiguity)
- United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 975 (11th Cir. 1990) (ambiguity resolved by reviewing record)
- United States v. Pulley, 601 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2010) (directs correction of judgment when appropriate)