FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT December 20, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk of Court
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 13-2112
(D. New Mexico)
SEBASTIAN L. ECCLESTON, (D.C. No. 1:95-CR-00014-LH-2)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER
Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
Sebastian Eccleston recently filed a motion for rehearing, which we have construed
to be a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 40; Fed. R.
App. P. 35(b). So construed, the petition was reviewed by the panel of judges originally
assigned to this matter. To the extent Eccleston requests a panel rehearing, that request is
denied. Further, the petition was sent to all of the judges of the court who are in regular
active service. Because no member of the panel and no judge in regular active service
requested that the court be polled, Eccleston’s request for an en banc rehearing also is
denied.
The panel has determined, however, that a factual correction should be made to the
original decision. The correction can be found on page 2. The clerk is directed to file the
attached corrected Order & Judgment nunc pro tunc to the original filing date of
November 25, 2013.
Entered for the Court
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
-2-
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT November 25, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk of Court
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 13-2112
SEBASTIAN L. ECCLESTON, (D. New Mexico)
(D.C. No. 1:95-CR-00014-LH-2)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
Several years ago in New Mexico Sebastian Eccleston murdered 18-year-old Ricky
Comingo. Two days later, he stole a car using a sawed-off shotgun and then robbed two
people at gunpoint. After being arrested by state law-enforcement officers, Eccleston
pleaded guilty in state court to first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree
murder. He pleaded guilty in federal court to carjacking, using and carrying a sawed-off
shotgun during and in relation to carjacking, interference with commerce by threat or
violence, and carrying a sawed-off shotgun during and in relation to interference with
commerce.
* The case is submitted on the briefs because the parties waived oral argument. See Fed.
R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent
except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may
be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.
The federal court sentenced Eccleston first. It gave him 120 months on the first
firearm count and 240 months on the second, to run consecutively, and then 57 months on
the two remaining counts, running concurrently with each other but consecutive to the
firearm counts for a total of 417 months. At the sentencing hearing, the district court
adopted the probation officer’s presentence report (PSR), which recited the fact that
Eccleston’s state plea agreement contained a provision that his state term of
imprisonment would run concurrently with any federal term. However, the district court
did not state at the sentencing hearing whether Eccleston’s federal sentence would run
concurrently with or consecutively to his yet-to-be-imposed state sentence. The district
court’s written judgment was similarly silent on that score.
After Eccleston’s federal sentencing, the state court sentenced him to life in prison
plus nine years. Because New Mexico was the first to take Eccleston into custody
following his arrest, it had primary jurisdiction over him. See Weekes v. Fleming, 301
F.3d 1175, 1180 (10th Cir. 2002) (explaining the primary-jurisdiction doctrine). As a
result, Eccleston was placed in state custody and began serving his state sentence before
his federal sentence.
Several years later, Eccleston filed a habeas petition in federal district court under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his federal sentence was not being properly executed.
Although Eccleston’s federal and state sentences were running consecutively, he believed
he was entitled to serve those sentences concurrently in a federal facility with his time in
state custody credited against his federal sentence. On appeal, we remanded the case to
the district court with instructions to dismiss Eccleston’s petition with prejudice because
-2-
it failed to raise any viable claim. United States v. Eccleston, 521 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th
Cir. 2008).
Eccleston then attempted to achieve the same result—having his state time credited
against his federal sentence—via a different road. To that end he filed a motion under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 asking the district court to amend its written
judgment to make his federal sentence concurrent with his state sentence. Rule 36
provides, “[a]fter giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time
correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error
in the record arising from oversight or omission.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. The district court
denied Eccleston’s motion.
Now on appeal, Eccleston claims the district court erred in doing so. His argument
starts with the following premise: If a district court intended a defendant’s federal
sentence to run concurrently with a later-imposed state sentence but its written judgment
omitted any statement to that effect, then the district court may correct that omission
under Rule 36. Here, although the written judgment is silent on how Eccleston’s federal
and state sentences would run, Eccleston says the district court intended the sentences to
run concurrently. To prove it, he points to the district court’s adoption of the PSR, which
allegedly stated that his sentences would run concurrently. As a result, Eccleston believes
the district court should have granted his Rule 36 motion and corrected its written
judgment to reflect its intent to run his federal and state sentences concurrently.
We are not persuaded, however, that the district court’s adoption of the PSR proves
so much. The PSR did not say that Eccleston’s federal and state sentences would run
-3-
concurrently; it merely recited the fact that Eccleston’s state plea agreement included a
provision that his state sentence would run concurrently with his federal sentence. See
Eccleston, 521 F.3d at 1251 (“The state plea agreement provided that Mr. Eccleston’s
state term of imprisonment would run concurrently with any federal term.”). To say the
district court adopted that recitation in the PSR doesn’t say very much. Was the district
court merely acknowledging the existence of a provision in Eccleston’s state plea
agreement or using that provision to inform its decision on how to run Eccleston’s federal
and state sentences? The answers to those questions are not readily apparent to us. In
other words, we think the district court’s adoption of the PSR sheds little light on whether
the district court intended to run Eccleston’s sentences concurrently or consecutively.
Two other facts, however, do shed considerable light on the subject and persuade us
that the district court intended Eccleston’s federal sentence to run consecutively to his
state sentence. First, the record contains a quotation from a letter the district court wrote
to the Bureau of Prisons stating, “[i]t was my intent at sentencing that the federal
sentence be served consecutively to [Eccleston’s] state sentence and this remains my
position.” R. at 199. Second, when the district court sentenced Eccleston, the law in this
circuit was that multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times were
consecutive unless the district court ordered otherwise. See United States v. Williams, 46
F.3d 57, 59 (10th Cir. 1995). Presumably aware of Williams, the district court knew that
its silence meant Eccleston’s sentences would run consecutively.
Because the district court intended Eccleston’s federal sentence to run consecutively
to his state sentence, it understandably rejected Eccleston’s request to amend the written
-4-
judgment to make those sentences concurrent. In short, the district court denied
Eccleston’s motion to amend because there was no error or omission to amend. We don’t
see anything wrong with that. We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying
Eccleston’s Rule 36 motion. We grant Eccleston’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
-5-