United States v. Michael Jett, 782 F.3d 1050

Jett pled guilty to one count of making a false claim against the government under 18 U.S.C. § 287.
In his plea agreement, Jett waived most appellate rights, preserving only claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or illegal sentence.
The district court sentenced Jett to 24 months' imprisonment with 3 years of supervised release.
After sentencing, but before custody, Jett moved under Rule 35(a) to vacate/correct his sentence based on ineffective assistance at sentencing.
The district court denied the Rule 35(a) motion, noting counsel raised relevant issues and the court considered them in sentencing.
On appeal, Jett contends the case should be remanded for resentencing due to ineffective assistance; the court holds Rule 35(a) cannot be used for such claims and affirms the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can Rule 35(a) be used to challenge sentencing based on ineffective assistance?	Jett argues Rule 35(a) may correct a sentence for ineffective assistance.	The government (defendant) contends Rule 35(a) is narrow and not for ineffective assistance claims.	Rule 35(a) cannot adjudicate ineffective assistance claims.
What is the proper vehicle for raising an ineffective-assistance claim affecting sentence?	Ineffective assistance could warrant resentencing or correction via Rule 35(a).	Ineffective-assistance claims belong in collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to develop the record.	Ineffective-assistance claims belong in § 2255 proceedings, not Rule 35(a).
Does precedent permit a Rule 35(a) correction when a district court misapplies guidelines or statutory factors?	N/A (Jett's argument focuses on effectiveness; the issue is about Rule 35(a)’s scope).	Rule 35(a) is narrow and applies only to obvious errors that make a sentence incorrect or unreasonable as a matter of law.	Rule 35(a) is limited to obvious legal/arithmetical errors; it does not authorize correcting ineffective-assistance errors.

United States v. Cannon, 719 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2013) (Rule 35(a) limited to errors that render sentence incorrect or unreasonable as a matter of law)
United States v. Sadler, 234 F.3d 368 (8th Cir. 2000) (Rule 35(a) applies to narrow corrections, not collateral-type claims)
United States v. Ellis, 417 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2005) (Applying guidelines as mandatory is a type of clear error cognizable by Rule 35)
United States v. Lindsey, 507 F.3d 1146 (8th Cir. 2007) (Ineffective-assistance claims should be raised in collateral proceedings)
United States v. Harris, 310 F.3d 1105 (8th Cir. 2002) (Same principle as Lindsey regarding where to raise counsel-ineffectiveness claims)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (Describes Rule 35 as a narrow, finality-based exception akin to § 3582(c))
Scott v. United States, 473 F.3d 1262 (8th Cir. 2007) (Ineffective-assistance claims are mixed questions appropriate for § 2255)