United States v. Jordan

Summary

The Ninth Circuit held that, under the pre-1985 version of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, a district court correcting an illegal sentence may correct only the illegal portion and may not change concurrent sentences to consecutive sentences to preserve the originally intended aggregate term. The court rejected the defendants’ claim that resentencing would violate double jeopardy because the challenged sentences were illegal and lacked an expectation of finality. The judgment was reversed and remanded for resentencing with concurrent terms of no more than five years each.

Holdings

1. Under former Rule 35(a), a district court may correct only the illegal portion of an illegal sentence; it may not change lawful concurrent terms into consecutive terms in order to preserve the original aggregate sentence.
2. The Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar resentencing Jordan and Meng to concurrent terms of no more than five years each because they could not reasonably expect finality in illegal sentences that they had consistently challenged.
3. The case had to be remanded for resentencing with the new sentences restructured as concurrent terms of no more than five years each, rather than under a broad mandate allowing the district court to recreate the original aggregate term.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a district court correcting an illegal sentence under former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) may alter a lawful concurrent-sentence provision to impose consecutive sentences.
2. Whether the defendants' Double Jeopardy Clause argument barred resentencing to terms longer than the two-year terms imposed in the district court's correction order.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded