Defendant Cannot Take Interlocutory Appeal from Denial of Motion for Resentencing Without His Presence

US v. Castellon: In 2022, the Fourth Circuit vacated Castellon’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and remanded for resentencing. On remand the parties agreed to the newly calculated Guideline range, that 210 months was the appropriate sentence, and that a resentencing hearing was not required. The district court “rejected the parties’ claim that Castellon could be resentenced in absentia, concluding that the only situation covered by the “voluntarily absent” language in Rule 43(c)(1)(B) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure was when the defendant fled proceedings and refused to submit themselves to the court. While noting that Castellon had “asserted valid reasons for sentencing in absentia, he hadn’t provided the court authority to do so.”

Castellon sought an interlocutory appeal to the Fourth Circuit to resolve the issue. While recognizing that the court’s “precedent appears to support their position” that a defendant can waive their presence at sentencing, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal on the matter. The court held that it did not fall under the collateral order doctrine because Castellon failed to identify “an important right implicated by the orders denying him the opportunity to be resentenced in absentia.” Castellon’s interest did not rise to the level of other issues that defendants can raise in an interlocutory appeal (such as double jeopardy claims), with the court concluding that “the district court’s error in interpreting a rule governing sentencing procedure isn’t compelling enough to warrant interlocutory appeal.”