Manrique v. United States (15-7250)

argument 15-7250

Manrique v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 53 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue about a single notice of appeal in Manrique v. United States?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next in Case 157250, Manrique v. United States. Mr. Rashkin.

Michael Rashkin 0:09

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. A single notice of appeal perfects the appeal of a criminal judgment and sentence, even if a part of that sentence is deferred. It doesn't matter whether the appeal is first noticed at the completion after restitution is decided, or if the appeal is noticed at the outset, after the initial sentencing hearing. In either event, that single notice of appeal perfects appeal of all issues that arise within that judgment and sentence when it is fully completed. We know this in part because of the Court's decision in Dolan. In Dolan, the Court struggled with the mechanics. How was the Court going to evaluate the Mandatory Victim and Restitution Act, what does it require a district court to do?

Michael Rashkin 1:01

And after struggling through those mechanics, the court said that essentially the second document fills in an amount-related blank in the original judgment that made clear that restitution was applicable. It is clear that what happens second, the restitution part, is nothing more than a completion of the original judgment and sentence. It is not a new judgment. It is not a new sentence. It is simply a completion, a fill-in-the-blanks, as the Court has phrased it. We know not only from Dolan that this should be the case, but we know it also by looking at the criminal appellate rules as they relate to criminal cases. If we go down one by one each of the sections of 4B, Each section leads to a single conclusion.

Michael Rashkin 1:52

Only one notice of appeal is required.

Unknown 1:54

What about 3C, which requires the notice of appeal to designate the judgment order or part thereof being appealed? So a notice of appeal can't designate an order that has not yet been made.

Michael Rashkin 2:11

That's correct, yet it's not entirely correct. 3C says designate the judgment under review, which we've done here. It was the initial judgment, the June 24th judgment, and that is the one and only that's under review. At the time that it was entered, it was interim or incomplete, provisional, something that the Court has seen previously in cases like Corey and first-tier mortgage, judgments that were not completely filled out by the time the notice of appeal was filed. But we are only appealing the June 24th judgment, as it was eventually completed by the later restitution proceeding. We argue, and I think the rules and Dolan make clear, that there is but one notice of appeal. There is but one judgment in these cases, and it only has to be noticed the one time.

Michael Rashkin 3:03

If we look at the balance of...

Elena Kagan 3:04

How do you tell the difference between one judgment and an amended judgment? Are you suggesting you don't have to... appeal from an amended judgment?

Michael Rashkin 3:14

That's correct. In the case of the deferred restitution, the Court made clear that there was not an additional judgment occurring, an amended judgment or an additional judgment. Again, to use the Court's words, the second document, if you will, is filling in the blanks of a judgment that was previously entered, leaving clear that those blanks were yet to be filled in.

Elena Kagan 3:37

So what happens if your initial appeal ends? before the restitution order is actually entered. Have you lost your right to appeal that second, that restitution order?

Michael Rashkin 3:52

No, for the following reason, Your Honor. As we indicated at the outset, there are two times to appeal, and this has been recognized by the courts below as well. There are two times that the defendant may appeal. He may either appeal at the outset, right after sentencing. Actually, the more logical time to do it would be at the conclusion of the case, There have been exceptions where defendants have wanted their appeals.

How does the Court’s decision in Dolan influence the treatment of deferred restitution?

Unknown 4:14

Pardon me, you said

Michael Rashkin 4:15

the outset right after sentencing? Yes, you're right. Right after sentencing or again after restitution. So that option to appeal after the restitution is completed is always available. It remains available if the initial appeal has ended. If there never was an initial appeal, there is always an opportunity to appeal again. The 14 days commence with the original sentence.