Legal Opinion
United States v. Todd Penna
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 10, 2003No. 01-50484PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PAEZ, Circuit Judge.
INTRODUCTION
We must decide whether the seven-day limitation in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c) for correcting a sentence is a strict jurisdictional requirement or whether a district court may modify a sentence more than seven days after its oral pronouncement. We hold that the seven-day requirement in Rule 35(c) is a jurisdictional requirement. Here, because the district court vacated Penna’s sentence within seven days, but did not resentence him within the same seven day period, it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 35(c) 1 to resentence Penna. Under these…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. Anthony F. DaddinoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- United States v. Miriam AguirreCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- United States v. Barragan-MendozaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- United States v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- United States v. Derrek ArringtonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014
- United States v. GriffinCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2008
- United States v. Peter James HollerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- United States v. Frank Wiggs BennettCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- United States v. HiggsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.