Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
No. 09-6376
Decided on Remand:
PER CURIAM:
This case returns to us on remand after the Supreme
Court granted Robert Manns petition for certiorari, vacated our
judgment in United States v. Mann, 373 Fed. Appx. 350 (4th Cir.
2010), and remanded for our consideration in light of Henderson
v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. __ (2011).
We previously held that 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) deprives
the
district
court
of
jurisdiction
to
grant
motion
to
addressing
whether
the
Courts
holding
in
Henderson
On May 27,
On
July
14,
2008,
the
district
court
denied
the
U.S.S.G.
App.
C,
Amends.
706,
2
711,
715,
2D1.1(c)(1)
more
of
crack).
On
July
22,
2008,
Mann
moved
for
for Mann, on January 26, 2009, the district court granted the
motion
for
review,
reconsideration,
it
concluded
that
explaining
the
that
record
did
after
not
further
explicitly
233,
exception
236
(4th
occurs
Cir.
when
the
2010).
One
Sentencing
specifically
Commission
596
authorized
retroactively
3582(c)(2).
When
and
only
one
--
opportunity
to
apply
the
retroactive
If Goodwyn
Goodwyn.
In
Henderson,
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
131 S. Ct.
did
not
speak
historically
been
Court,
(3)
and
administrative
in
jurisdictional
treated
was
review
as
part
by
terms,
jurisdictional
of
Article
(2)
by
the
nonadversarial
courts.
had
Id.
Supreme
system
at
not
of
1203-06.
significantly,
the
provision
at
issue
here
it
has
been
imposed,
3582(c)(emphasis added).
subject
to
specific
exceptions.
authority
the
court
By addressing the
itself
rather
than
an
Henderson,
explicitly
imposes
limitations
on
the
district
See United
At common law,
After the
Supreme
Court
continued
to
treat
these
time
limits
as
jurisdictional.
n.2 (1947); United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 189, 189
n.17 (1979).
Finally, this context also makes clear that Congress
has
not
shown
defendants
as
the
it
has
same
special
solicitude
for
veterans.
Unlike
for
the
criminal
process
for
generally
adversarial.
See
Fed.
R.
Crim.
Proc.
32
Moreover,
at
1204
(distinguishing
prior
treating