United States v. Randall
666 F.3d 1238
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Randall was convicted by a federal jury of conspiracy to participate in a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization (RICO) under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
- District court sentenced Randall in May 2010 with six criminal history points; an additional point was added under § 4A1.1(e) for committing the offense less than two years after release from imprisonment, raising him to criminal history category IV.
- Amendment 742, effective November 1, 2010, eliminated recency points under § 4A1.1; Randall separately sought a retroactive sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
- District court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion on jurisdictional grounds tied to a pending appeal and on the merits of retroactive applicability; it later denied a motion for reconsideration.
- Randall filed a notice of appeal August 29, 2011, seeking review of the district court’s denial of the reconsideration motion and separately addressing timeliness issues; the Tenth Circuit held the appeal untimely but within discretionary extension authority, and ultimately affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to reconsider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Randall’s notice of appeal was timely. | Randall contends timely filing within Rule 4(b)’s extension period. | Government contends untimeliness; timeliness may be excused by excusable neglect or good cause. | Untimely filing, but excusable neglect extension may apply, and appeal considered. |
| Whether the district court properly denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion based on retroactive Amendment 742. | Randall argues Amendment 742 should be applied retroactively under § 3582(c)(2). | Amendment 742 is not listed in § 1B1.10(c), and court lacked jurisdiction to modify. | District court’s jurisdiction to modify was not properly triggered; decision affirmed on timeliness grounds. |
| Whether Randall’s motion for reconsideration was timely. | Randall argues reconsideration should be considered; timely under appeal window. | Reconsideration must be filed within the time for appeal; timely appeal period expired. | Motion to reconsider untimely; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Espinosa-Talamantes v. United States, 319 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2003) (criminal-notice-of-appeal timing under Rule 4(b))
- Garduño v. United States, 506 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 2007) (Rule 4(b) time-bar; extension discretion)
- United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740 (10th Cir. 2008) (excusable neglect extension for late Rule 4(b) filing)
- United States v. Distasio, 820 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1987) (sentencing court lacks jurisdiction after notice of appeal)
- United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75 (1964) (recognition of reconsideration in criminal proceedings)
- United States v. Miller, 869 F.2d 1418 (10th Cir. 1989) (timeliness of reconsideration under Rule 4(b) related to appeal period)
- United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2010) (limits on second reduction after § 3582(c)(2) motion)
- United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2011) (reconsideration must be within time for appeal)