U.S. v. Howell

Dist. Ct. did not err in conducting defendant’s resentencing via teleconference under Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which requires defendant’s consent to conduct teleconference. While record lacked defense motion requesting said teleconference or express on the record statement by defendant that consented to such teleconference, CARES Act does not require either motion by defendant requesting teleconference or on the record statement by him consenting to said teleconference. Moreover, while Rule 43(a) typically requires defendant’s personal presence at any sentencing hearing, record showed that Dist. Ct., lawyer and defendant all proceeded with clear but implicit understanding that defendant had consented to teleconference. Record also contained docket entry indicating that defendant had moved to proceed with instant videoconference resentencing hearing.