United States v. Thomas Hankton
875 F.3d 786
5th Cir.2017Background
- Three defendants (Derrick Smothers, Terrell Smothers, Thomas Hankton) were sentenced in federal court and received reductions to reflect prior state time served related to their federal offenses.
- Thirteen days after sentencing the Government moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) to "correct" the sentences and remove those reductions, arguing the BOP/Attorney General has exclusive authority to grant credit and that the Sentencing Guidelines provision §5G1.3(b) did not apply because the state terms were discharged.
- The district court, under the 14-day Rule 35(a) deadline, granted the Government’s motion and removed the reductions, concluding the original sentences were "clear error." Defendants appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Rule 35(a) authorized the district court to rescind the reductions and examined whether the reductions were correct under the Guidelines or §5K2.23.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded the district court abused Rule 35(a): the reductions were not correctable as "clear error," reinstated the original judgments, and remanded only to conform Terrell’s written judgment to the oral sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Rule 35(a): may it correct legal errors or guideline application? | Rule 35(a) permits correction of clear legal errors within 14 days. | Rule 35(a) does not permit reconsideration of guideline application or legal issues not "obvious." | Rule 35(a) is limited; it cannot be used to re-decide guideline application or non-obvious legal errors. |
| Authority to give credit for prior state time served vs BOP role | Only BOP/Attorney General may compute credit under 18 U.S.C. §3585; district court usurped BOP by granting reductions. | Sentencing courts retain residual authority under U.S.S.G. §5G1.3(b) or §5K2.23 to adjust/depart when BOP will not grant credit. | District court may reduce under §5G1.3(b) or §5K2.23 when BOP will not give credit; removing reductions via Rule 35(a) was improper. |
| Terrell: sentence below statutory mandatory minimum after reduction | Government later argued mandatory minimum problem supports vacatur. | Defendants: Government raised the point too late; Terrell had no chance to respond and oral sentence controlled. | Court declined to affirm on that alternative ground due to late, unaddressed argument; remanded to conform written judgment to oral pronouncement. |
| Hankton: whether stipulated (Rule 11(c)(1)(C)) sentence can be reduced for prior time served; whether prior term was "undischarged" | Government argued plea agreement barred reduction and that prior term was discharged. | Defendants: reduction permissible; disputed whether prior term was undischarged because Hankton was on parole. | Neither alleged error was "clear": circuit split and unsettled law; Rule 35(a) correction was improper; original sentence reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (Sup. Ct.) (Executive Branch administers credit under §3585)
- United States v. Lopez, 26 F.3d 512 (5th Cir.) (Rule 35(a) not for redeciding guideline application)
- United States v. Ross, 557 F.3d 237 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 35(a) authority)
- United States v. Salinas, 480 F.3d 750 (5th Cir.) (no plain/clear error where circuit law unsettled)
- United States v. Huor, 852 F.3d 392 (5th Cir.) (oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written judgment)