United States v. Darius Chaney

Summary

The Fourth Circuit held that an appeal from an amended judgment entered after a successful § 2255 motion, which vacated one conviction but reimposed sentences on other counts, is a criminal appeal governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)'s 14-day filing period, not the civil 60-day period under Rule 4(a); therefore, Chaney's untimely appeal was dismissed. Alternatively, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion under § 2255(b) by vacating only the unlawful § 922(g)(1) conviction and declining to order a full resentencing on the carjacking count, as the district court has broad remedial discretion and may correct a sentence without conducting a formal resentencing under the sentence-package theory. Key topics include appellate timeliness for hybrid § 2255/criminal judgments, district court's remedial discretion, and the effect of plea-agreement waivers.

Holdings

1. An appeal from a new criminal sentence entered after a § 2255 order is governed by Rule 4(b)'s 14-day period, and thus Chaney's appeal was untimely.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion because § 2255(b) gives broad discretion, and the court's decision to correct the sentence without full resentencing was reasonable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Chaney's appeal of the amended judgment entered after a § 2255 order is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) (civil) or 4(b) (criminal), and thus whether his notice of appeal filed 54 days after the judgment was timely.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by vacating only the § 922(g)(1) conviction and sentence and not resentencing Chaney on the carjacking count.

Disposition

Dismissed