## Facts

- Michael Greenlaw was convicted in federal court on multiple drug and firearms counts, including two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) for using or carrying a firearm during drug trafficking crimes.
- Under controlling precedent, the second § 924(c) conviction in the same prosecution required a 25-year mandatory consecutive minimum sentence.
- The district court imposed a lower sentence on the second § 924(c) count, resulting in a total sentence of 442 months.
- Greenlaw appealed, arguing his sentence was unreasonable and should be reduced.
- The Government objected to the § 924(c) error in the district court but did not file an appeal or cross-appeal.
- The court of appeals rejected Greenlaw’s arguments but, invoking plain-error review, ordered the district court to increase the sentence by 15 years.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court of appeals may increase a criminal defendant’s sentence on its own initiative when the Government did not appeal or cross-appeal.
2. Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) permits an appellate court to grant relief benefiting the Government despite the absence of a government appeal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded.
- Absent a government appeal or cross-appeal, the appellate court lacked authority to order an increased sentence.
- Rule 52(b) did not authorize the appellate court to enlarge the defendant’s sentence where the Government chose not to seek appellate relief.

## Legal Principles

- Under the cross-appeal rule, an appellee may not obtain relief enlarging its rights or reducing the appellant’s rights without filing a cross-appeal.
- The party-presentation principle generally limits appellate courts to issues and remedies sought by the parties, with courts acting as neutral arbiters.
- Rule 52(b) allows review of forfeited errors but does not expand the remedies available to benefit a non-appealing party.
- Congress structured government sentencing appeals to require specified high-level approval (18 U.S.C. § 3742(b)), reinforcing executive control over whether to pursue a higher sentence on appeal.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that a federal appellate court may not sua sponte increase a defendant’s sentence to correct a plain sentencing error when the Government has not appealed or cross-appealed, and it vacated the increased sentence entered on that basis.


Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008)