Armed robbery of a credit union. Conviction affirmed, but sentence vacated.
Procedural Highlights:
* Orally pronounced sentence on one count exceed the statutory maximum sentence and then conflicted with the minute order and the written judgment.
* Before the end of the sentencing hearing, the defendant asked the district court to direct the clerk's office to file a notice of appeal for him. The notice, however, was never filed. The defendant filed a pro se notice months later. The district court then ordered the clerk's office to file a notice of appeal nunc pro tunc to the date of sentencing.
* The appellate court found that the district court lacked the authority to enter the nunc pro tunc order and dismissed the appeal for lack jurisdiction.
* The defendant filed a pro se 2255, which the gov supported, as the gov recognized that the defendant was not at fault for the untimeliness of the notice of appeal. Sentencing discrepancy not addressed.
* To remedy the notice-of-appeal issue, the district court vacated its judgment and reentered a judgment, which matched the earlier written judgment.
Conclusions of Court of Appeals:
* Usually, an oral pronouncement of judgment controls. Oral sentence, however, constituted technical error b/c it exceeded the statutory maximum sentence. Written judgment that would have corrected this error was issued two days after the Rule 35(a) deadline, however. Because the defendant did not raise the issue on appeal and because the COA vacated the sentence, the court did not decide whether or not relief based on the discrepancy was in order.
* Admission of fingerprint evidence was not an abuse of discretion. At CDAM and at local panel trainings, we've talked a little about forensic evidence. In this case, the Sixth Circuit discussed the National Research Council's Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward of 2009.
* At the Daubert hearing, the gov fingerprint examiner testified that when the ACE-V method of identifying latent fingerprints is properly used by a competent examiner the error rate for identification is zero. The defendant challenged this assertion.
* The COA found two problems with the challenge. First, the National Research Council's report from 2009 was not before the district court in 2005. Second, error rate is only one factor to consider. Even if the gov examiner was wrong about it, that mistake would not negate the scientific validity of the ACE-V method given the other factors the district court had to consider, and which the defendant did not challenge on appeal.
* Plain-error standard applied to procedural sentencing claim. COA found that the sentencing "court's failure to explain [the defendant's] sentence constituted plain error." No reasoning given for the sentence. The sentencing court did not address the defendant's argument that the sentence was disproportionate to another bank robber's sentence.
* The COA distinguished United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008), as in that case the court had offered "at least some" explanation for the sentence imposed. There was no explanation in the case at hand.
