United States of America v. Tommy Martin, Jr.
226 F.3d 1042 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An order granting a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition is not a final, appealable judgment if it contemplates a future resentencing. Therefore, a motion to reconsider such an order is not subject to the 10-day time limit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and the district court retains inherent jurisdiction to consider the motion at any time before the resentencing occurs.
Facts:
- In 1991, Tommy Martin, Jr. was convicted on three federal counts, including carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and was sentenced to 235 months in prison.
- In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bailey v. United States narrowed the definition of what it means to "use" a firearm under § 924(c).
- Relying on Bailey, Martin filed a § 2255 motion in 1996, arguing his § 924(c) conviction was invalid because the government had not proven he had "used" the firearm as defined by the new precedent.
- After Martin filed his motion but before the district court ruled on reconsideration, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Muscarello v. United States in 1998.
- Muscarello held that a § 924(c) conviction could be sustained under the "carry" prong of the statute if the defendant knowingly possessed and conveyed a firearm in a vehicle, which described Martin's actions.
Procedural Posture:
- Tommy Martin, Jr. filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the U.S. District Court to vacate his firearm conviction.
- On April 7, 1998, the district court granted Martin's motion, vacated the conviction, and scheduled a resentencing hearing.
- On June 29, 1998, eighty-three days later, the Government filed a motion for reconsideration in the district court based on an intervening Supreme Court decision.
- Martin filed an opposition, arguing the motion was untimely and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
- The district court granted the Government's motion for reconsideration, reversed its prior order, and reinstated Martin's conviction.
- Martin (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the district court's jurisdiction to hear the Government's (appellee) motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court have jurisdiction to consider a motion for reconsideration filed more than ten days after it issues an order granting a § 2255 petition, when that order contemplates a future resentencing that has not yet occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Berzon
Yes. A district court has jurisdiction to consider a motion for reconsideration filed more than ten days after granting a § 2255 petition if resentencing has not yet occurred, because such an order is not a final judgment. The court reasoned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which imposes a ten-day limit on motions to alter or amend a judgment, applies only to final orders. Citing Andrews v. United States, the court explained that an order in a § 2255 proceeding that requires a future action, such as resentencing, is interlocutory and not final. This rule prevents piecemeal appeals and promotes judicial efficiency. Because the district court's initial order granting Martin's petition was non-final, the court retained its inherent authority to modify, alter, or revoke it, especially in light of an intervening change in the law like the Supreme Court's decision in Muscarello.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the procedural concept of finality in the context of § 2255 habeas corpus proceedings. By holding that an order requiring resentencing is not a final judgment, the court preserves the district court's flexibility to correct its own errors and adapt to changes in precedent before an appeal can be filed. This ruling promotes judicial economy by allowing trial courts to resolve issues completely, rather than forcing parties into a potentially unnecessary or premature appellate process. It reinforces the principle that district courts have inherent power over their non-final, interlocutory orders.
Unlock the full brief for United States of America v. Tommy Martin, Jr.