Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paul Reid v. United States, 69 F.3d 688, 2d Cir. (1995)
Paul Reid v. United States, 69 F.3d 688, 2d Cir. (1995)
3d 688
Reid does, however, raise one argument that warrants discussion. At the
sentencing hearing, the district court failed to inform Reid of his right to appeal
his sentence. At the time of that hearing, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
A number of circuits hold the view that a district court's failure to advise a
defendant who pleads guilty of his right to appeal his sentence as required by
Rule 32(a)(2) constitutes a per se error that requires vacatur of the sentence and
a remand for re-sentencing, regardless of whether the defendant had actual
knowledge of his right to appeal. See Biro v. United States, 24 F.3d 1140,
1141-42 (9th Cir.1994); Paige v. United States, 443 F.2d 781, 782 (4th
Cir.1971); United States v. Deans, 436 F.2d 596, 599 n. 3 (3d Cir.), cert.
denied, 403 U.S. 911, 91 S.Ct. 2211, 29 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971); United States v.
Benthien, 434 F.2d 1031, 1032 (1st Cir.1970); Nance v. United States, 422
F.2d 590, 592 (7th Cir.1970); United States v. Smith, 387 F.2d 268, 270-71
(6th Cir.1967); see also Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327, 331-32, 89
S.Ct. 1715, 1717-18, 23 L.Ed.2d 340 (1969) (alternate holding); United States
v. Drummond, 903 F.2d 1171, 1175 (8th Cir.1990) (Heaney, Judge, dissenting),
cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1049, 111 S.Ct. 759, 112 L.Ed.2d 779 (1991).
Accordingly, we vacate the order of the district court and remand for
resentencing at which Reid will be advised of his right to appeal. This
disposition is not an indication that the sentence itself is in any way defective.
That is an issue which we do not reach. We affirm as to all other issues raised
by Reid.