Sanchez v. United States

Background

Edgar Sanchez, acting without a lawyer, filed two motions. The first invoked Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, which permits a court to correct a clerical error—a mechanical mistake in recording what the court or a party said or did. The second sought to supplement the record for possible resentencing.

A jury had convicted Sanchez of, among other offenses, a narcotics conspiracy, murder while engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, and using a firearm in connection with a narcotics-trafficking conspiracy resulting in death. Judge Scheindlin sentenced him to 360 months of imprisonment followed by a mandatory consecutive ten-year term. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Sanchez later filed several unsuccessful collateral challenges, including an earlier motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the federal procedure used to challenge a federal sentence.

The Alleged Clerical Error

Sanchez identified an error in his former lawyer’s 2003 motion for acquittal. The lawyer wrote that the jury had found Sanchez responsible for “at least five grams, but ‘NOT’ less than 50 grams of crack cocaine.” The jury’s actual finding was “at least five grams but less than 50 grams.” Judge Scheindlin repeated the mistaken word “not” in an order denying the motion for acquittal.

Sanchez argued that the extra word made the record appear to involve 50 grams or more, which corresponds to a different statutory penalty provision, and that the judgment should be changed to reflect a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) rather than § 841(b)(1)(A).

The court explained that the judgment did not mention either § 841 provision. Instead, it listed Sanchez’s convictions for the counts charged and the statutes corresponding to those counts, including the narcotics-conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. § 846. The sentencing transcript and judgment imposed the same sentence for the crimes the jury had found. The court therefore found no clerical error in the judgment and no basis to amend it.

The court added that, to the extent Sanchez was claiming that Judge Scheindlin imposed a greater sentence because of a mistake about the conviction, he was challenging the sentence’s imposition rather than seeking correction of a clerical mistake. Rule 36 does not authorize that type of substantive change. The court stated that such a challenge ordinarily would be brought under § 2255.

Treatment Under Section 2255

The court considered whether it could treat Sanchez’s Rule 36 motion as a § 2255 petition. It concluded that the earlier § 2255 petition had been denied as time-barred, which the court treated as a decision on the merits, and that Sanchez could have raised this claim earlier. A new petition would therefore be a successive § 2255 petition. Because that petition would also be time-barred, the court concluded that relief under § 2255 was plainly unavailable and stated that the proper course would be to dismiss the Rule 36 motion.

Supplement Motion and Disposition

The court found the supplement request unripe because Sanchez filed it before the court ruled on his earlier reconsideration motion and appeared to anticipate a favorable ruling that could lead to vacating one count and resentencing on others. The court had denied that earlier motion and stated that it had no legal basis to resentence Sanchez or credit him for time spent in state jail more than 20 years earlier. The court characterized the request to add information as premature and any requested sentence changes as unsupported.

The conclusion states that Sanchez’s motions were “DENIED” and directs the Clerk to terminate them. The opinion’s discussion separately states that the Rule 36 motion should be dismissed because the alleged sentencing challenge could not proceed under Rule 36 and was unavailable under § 2255.