Court Clarifies District Court Authority When Appeal Is Taken

US v. Armstrong: In 2005, Armstrong was sentenced to 384 months in prison following a conviction for two counts brandishing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence, which were “stacked” as required by law at the time. Armstrong later filed a motion for compassionate release, arguing that the disparity between that sentence and the sentence he would get in wake of the First Step Act’s change to the stacking rules constituted “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for relief. The district court denied the motion, citing Armstrong’s criminal history and “exceptionally violent” conduct.

Armstrong both appealed that decision and, while the appeal was pending, filed a motion for reconsideration. The district court denied that motion on the merits and Armstrong appealed from that decision as well.

On appeal from the denial of the motion to reconsider, the issue was whether the district court had the “authority to deny Armstrong’s motion . . . given that his appeal of the district court’s initial order was pending in this court.” The court concluded that it did, pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which gives district courts authority to deny or defer consideration of a motion in such circumstances, but not grant it. If the district court would grant it if it had jurisdiction, it could say so and the parties could seek remand from the court of appeals. The court rejected the Government’s reliance on pre-Rule 37 caselaw that held otherwise.