6th Cir.

United States v. Saunders

June 26, 2026 ·25-3634 ·Published ·Thapar · By James Taylor

The Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court order that reissued a judgment to allow a delayed appeal after counsel failed to file a timely notice. The court held that reissuing the judgment was the proper remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel and did not require a full resentencing hearing.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:23

Background

Joshua Saunders was charged with receiving, distributing, and possessing child pornography, as well as sexually exploiting a minor. He entered a plea agreement waiving his right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction, except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After sentencing to forty-eight months imprisonment and lifetime supervised release, Saunders failed to appeal. He later claimed his attorney neglected to file a notice of appeal when instructed. The district court found ineffective assistance and reissued the judgment to allow a delayed appeal, but denied a full resentencing hearing.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that when counsel fails to file a timely notice of appeal, the defendant is entitled to a delayed appeal. The district court properly vacated the sentence and reissued the judgment to restart the appeal clock. This remedy rectifies the harm of losing the opportunity to appeal without affecting the accuracy or integrity of the conviction or sentence. The court further noted that Saunders’s plea agreement waived direct challenges to his within-Guidelines sentence, preventing him from arguing that the court failed to consider new evidence regarding his psychological state.

Giving Saunders a second chance to appeal rectifies that harm.

Opinion at 5

What it means going forward

The decision clarifies that reissuing a judgment is sufficient relief for counsel’s failure to file an appeal, preventing defendants from forcing full resentencing hearings based on new evidence in this context.