The cert petition in US v. Lett (and amici encouragement)

I reported in this post this morning that today we filed a cert petition in the remarkable case of US v. Lett (which was the topic of this column in today's New York Times).  I can now post a copy of the filed petition, which has this Introduction:

Federal district courts impose more than 65,000 felony sentences every year. Inevitably, sentencing judges occasionally commit reversible legal errors in imposing these sentences. Acknowledging that reality, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly afford sentencing judges an efficient means (rather than awaiting appellate reversal) to correct such errors when caught quickly.  Rule 35(a) provides that “[w]ithin 7 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.”  Here, the district court did just that.  Based on a misunderstanding of the applicable statutory minimum sentence, Judge William Steele at first mistakenly concluded that he was unable to sentence  petitioner Patrick Lett to less than five years’ incarceration for a minor, non-violent drug offense.  Recognizing within the Rule 35 time period that he had erred in determining the sentencing range, Judge Steele corrected his legal error and imposed a lawful (and lower) sentence according to the terms of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the district judge’s conscientious effort to correct his sentencing mistake was improper because the Judge’s legal error did not constitute “other clear error” for purposes of Rule 35. In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit adopted an unduly restrictive view of “other clear error” that undermines Rule 35’s ability to allow efficient corrections to legally erroneous criminal sentences.  The decision below thus threatens the effective and just operation of the criminal sentencing system, an issue of substantial federal importance given the tens of thousands of sentences entered every year in U.S. District Courts.

Compounding the need for review, the court’s decision also conflicts with settled law in other circuits. All courts agree that Rule 35’s purpose is to allow a trial judge to avoid the need for appeal where the result of that appeal will be a reversal for resentencing. Rulings from the First, Second, and Ninth Circuits have correctly concluded in comparable settings that any time that a sentencing judge operates under a legal misunderstanding as to applicable sentencing options, such a mistake necessarily constitutes reversible error requiring resentencing (and thus is the type of error allowing correction under Rule 35). The court below in this case, by contrast, concluded that not all such sentencing errors amount to “clear error” allowing for correction through Rule 35(a). Rather, according to the Eleventh Circuit, an error regarding the judge’s sentencing authority will be “clear” (and thus subject to efficient correction in the district court) only if binding precedent in a factually indistinguishable case plainly reveals that error.

Finally, the Eleventh Circuit also adopted a novel and misguided “remedy” in the wake of its flawed Rule 35(a) interpretation. It ordered the District Court to impose the initial, erroneous five-year prison term — notwithstanding Judge Steele’s conscientious (and unreversed) determination that he had committed error in imposing that sentence, as well as Judge Steele’s express finding that only a much shorter prison term was “sufficient but not greater 4 than necessary” to serve the sentencing purposes Congress set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  Nothing in the language of Rule 35 or any other statutory provision justifies the Eleventh Circuit’s order that the district court now impose a legally erroneous sentence on Patrick Lett.

The Eleventh Circuit’s strained interpretation of Rule 35 reverses a “just determination” in this case, while also disrupting Judge Steele’s efforts to achieve “simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration,” and to “eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.”  See Fed. R. Crim. P. 2. Because the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling creates confusion that will lead to unjust and/or conflicting results in lower courts, this Court should intervene to provide needed guidance as to what constitutes “clear error” under Rule 35(a).  Patrick Lett respectfully urges the Court to grant certiorari and reverse the decision below.

Download lett_cert_petition.pdf

Though we have strong arguments for Supreme Court review, the statistical reality is that less than 1% of all cert. petitions are accepted by the Court.  Consequently, I can state with confidence that Sgt. Lett (and his lawyers) would be happy and eager to have those aggrieved by this case consider filing an amicus brief in support of our cert. petition.