Case Explained: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSHUA SAUNDERS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-26 The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order reissuing a judgment to allow a delayed appeal, rejecting the appellant’s argument that a full resentencing hearing was required. The court held that when counsel fails to file a timely notice of appeal as requested by the defendant, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the sentence and reissue the judgment to restart the appeal clock, rather than conducting a de novo resentencing. Applying the standard from *Campbell v. United States* and *Roe v. Flores-Ortega*, the court reasoned that counsel’s failure to file an appeal does not affect the accuracy or integrity of the conviction or sentence itself; it merely deprives the defendant of the opportunity to appeal, which is fully cured by granting a delayed appeal. Additionally, the court noted that any challenge regarding the reasonableness of the sentence was barred by the appellant’s plea agreement waiver, which precluded direct appeals for within-Guidelines sentences except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. Consequently, Saunders remains subject to his original 480-month sentence and must proceed with a direct appeal on the merits of his conviction and sentence through the revived procedural mechanism, while any remaining ineffective assistance claims regarding sentencing factors must be pursued as collateral attacks in the district court. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.