United States v. Spaulding
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15544
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Spaulding pleaded guilty in Sept. 2012 under a plea agreement promising the government would move for a §5K1.1 substantial-assistance departure; the district court sentenced him Dec. 6, 2012 to 137 months (top of guideline range) despite the government’s recommendation of 77–96 months.
- On Dec. 7, 2012 Spaulding moved to correct sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) or, alternatively, to withdraw his plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d); the government had not yet responded but stated it would not object to a three-level acceptance adjustment.
- On Dec. 10, 2012 the district court denied the Rule 35(a) motion and granted Spaulding’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea; the case proceeded, new plea attempts failed, Spaulding was tried and reconvicted, and a new judgment was entered Aug. 27, 2013.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit sua sponte questioned whether the post-sentence withdrawal violated Rule 11(e) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), issued an order to show cause, and invited briefing on whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to allow post-sentence plea withdrawal.
- The Tenth Circuit majority held Rule 11(e), interpreted together with § 3582(c) and Rule 35, is jurisdictional (i.e., deprives district courts of authority to set aside a plea after sentence except by the narrow statutory or rule-based exceptions) and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant withdrawal; all orders after Dec. 6, 2012 are void and the case is remanded to reinstate the Dec. 6, 2012 judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Spaulding's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may permit withdrawal of a guilty plea after sentence absent statutory authority | The withdrawal order was effectively nunc pro tunc to before sentencing or alternatively the motion was a collateral §2255-style challenge | Rule 11(e) and §3582(c) bar post-sentence plea withdrawal; district court lacked jurisdiction | Held: Rule 11(e) (with §3582(c) and Rule 35) is jurisdictional and bars post-sentence plea withdrawal absent statutory or Rule 35 authority; district court lacked jurisdiction to grant withdrawal |
| Whether actions taken after the unauthorized withdrawal are void | If the court ordered withdrawal nunc pro tunc, later proceedings stand | The government: unauthorized withdrawal voids subsequent proceedings; remedy is reinstatement of original judgment | Held: Subsequent proceedings are void; remand to vacate the Aug. 27, 2013 judgment and reinstate Dec. 6, 2012 judgment |
| Whether a district court can use nunc pro tunc to cure a jurisdictional defect | N/A (Spaulding argued nunc pro tunc made withdrawal retroactive) | N/A (court treated nunc pro tunc as insufficient to cure lack of jurisdiction) | Held: A nunc pro tunc order cannot cure a lack of jurisdiction; it only corrects the record |
| Proper remedy when a district court lacks jurisdiction for post-sentence plea withdrawal | Spaulding urged different postures including new direct appeal | Government urged reinstatement of original judgment and remand | Held: Remand with instructions to vacate subsequent orders and reinstate the Dec. 6, 2012 judgment so Spaulding may pursue a new direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (statutory time limits vs. claim-processing rules analysis)
- Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (Fed. R. Crim. P. time prescriptions are claim-processing, not jurisdictional)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (statutory appellate time limit is jurisdictional)
- McGaughy v. United States, 670 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2012) (Rule 35 and §3582(c) impose jurisdictional limits on sentence modification)
- United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780 (finality interest in guilty pleas)
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (federal rules promulgated under Rules Enabling Act have force comparable to statutes)