United States v. Oscar Ceballos
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22517
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ceballos pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
- He requested a Southern California housing designation to the Bureau of Prisons at sentencing, which was not addressed.
- Eight days after sentencing, the parties jointly sought to amend the Judgment to include the housing designation.
- The district court denied the request, stating BOP custody decisions are within the agency’s purview.
- Ceballos appeals, challenging jurisdiction to review the district court’s non-binding housing recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to amend judgment | Ceballos argues the district court could amend under Rule 35. | Goverment contends no authority to amend after judgment; no Rule 35 error. | District court lacked authority to amend after judgment. |
| Appealability of housing recommendation | Ceballos contends appeal lies under 28 U.S.C. §1291 or §3742. | BOP control over designation means recommendations are non-binding and non-appealable. | No jurisdiction to review the non-binding housing recommendation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Handa, 122 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 1997) (authority to resentence limited to mandates or Rule 35)
- United States v. Caterino, 29 F.3d 1390 (9th Cir. 1994) (sentencing authority must derive from statutory authority)
- United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539 (10th Cir. 1997) (same principle of statutory authority for sentencing changes)
- United States v. Dragna, 746 F.2d 457 (9th Cir. 1984) (designations of place of imprisonment lie with BOP)
- United States v. Kerr, 472 F.3d 517 (8th Cir. 2006) (non-binding recommendations to BOP not reviewable)