United States v. Weathers, Marc
394 U.S. App. D.C. 131
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Weathers was convicted on two federal and four D.C. Code counts for rapes and related offenses.
- At resentencing in 2007, the court said it would impose the sentence “that was … imposed approximately ten years ago,” with the same terms as the 1997 sentence except for vacating count five.
- The court described federal counts 1 and 4 as consecutive to each other and concurrent with D.C. counts, but did not expressly state whether D.C. counts ran consecutively to each other.
- The written judgment later ordered D.C. counts to run consecutively to each other and concurrently with the federal sentences.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), multiple terms run concurrently unless clearly ordered to run consecutively, and the Court relied on the written judgment to clarify the sentence.
- The court held that the oral sentence controls and that the written judgment may clarify but cannot contradict the oral pronouncement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the written judgment contradicted or clarified the oral sentence | Weathers argues the written judgment contradicted the oral order. | The district court’s oral pronouncement controlled; ambiguity allowed the written judgment to clarify. | Written judgment clarified, not contradicted, the oral sentence. |
| Whether the D.C. counts were required to run consecutively | D.C. counts ran consecutively as in the original sentence. | No explicit statement at resentencing; written judgment indicates consecutive D.C. counts. | The combined oral and written pronouncements satisfied § 3584(a) and required consecutive D.C. counts. |
| Whether the oral pronouncement controls over the written judgment | Oral sentence should control regardless of written form. | Written judgment can clarify ambiguities in the oral pronouncement. | Oral sentence controls but written judgment may clarify; no remand needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Love, 593 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (oral sentence controls over written judgment; rule clarified by 2004 amendment)
- United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir. 1987) (en banc; written judgment can contradict if it displaces the oral sentence)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (advisory Guidelines; sentence framework post-Booker)
- United States v. Weathers, 493 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (vacated count; resentencing context for consecutive/concurrent terms)