-
890 F.2d 672·
4th Cir.·
1989-11-22
·cited 37×
The court held that a district court has inherent power to correct a sentence based on an acknowledged misinterpretation of sentencing guidelines, but only until the time for filing an appeal has expired. The court also held that the district court erred by increasing the sentenc
-
901 F.2d 975·
11th Cir.·
1990-05-21
·cited 30×
The court held that the district court erred in amending the sentencing transcript and vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing due to irreconcilable conflicts in the oral pronouncement.
-
495 F.2d 253·
9th Cir.·
1974-04-08
·cited 27×
The court held that an unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence must control over a conflicting written judgment, even if the judge misspoke.
-
868 F.2d 720·
5th Cir.·
1989-03-16
·cited 24×
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, but the defendant was denied his right to allocution and must be resentenced.
-
313 F.2d 325·
6th Cir.·
1963-02-06
·cited 24×
The court held that a clerical error in the judgment referencing the wrong statutory subsection was correctable and did not warrant a new trial, and that the prosecutor's waiver of closing argument was not prejudicial without a timely objection.
-
269 F.2d 770·
D.C. Cir.·
1959-06-18
·cited 17×
The court held that while a defendant should generally be present for corrections to their sentence, this case should be remanded to allow the pro se appellant an opportunity to amend their motion to vacate the correction, given the possibility of factual disputes not adequately
-
907 F.2d 1038·
10th Cir.·
1990-07-13
·cited 14×
The court held that the district court properly denied the defendant credit for acceptance of responsibility but erred by failing to append findings on controverted matters to the presentence report.
-
914 F.2d 165·
9th Cir.·
1990-09-07
·cited 10×
The court held that the district court's failure to attach required findings to the presentence report was a ministerial error that could be corrected by ordering the report amended, and that the prisoner's other claims lacked merit.
-
588 F.2d 620·
8th Cir.·
1978-12-11
·cited 10×
The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated by the lineup procedures, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
881 F.2d 730·
9th Cir.·
1989-08-03
·cited 8×
A violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(D)'s requirement to attach a written record of the court's determination on contested presentence material is not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus proceeding when a remedy under Rule 36 is available.
-
259 F.2d 611·
9th Cir.·
1958-04-21
·cited 6×
The court held that the denial of the motion to vacate the sentence was correct because the record, when viewed judicially and in its entirety, demonstrated that the defendant understood the charges to which he pleaded guilty.
-
860 F.2d 25·
2d Cir.·
1988-10-17
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court properly enhanced the defendants' sentences based on their membership in a criminal organization and properly clarified an ambiguity in the oral sentencing pronouncement through the written judgment and commitment order.
-
797 F.2d 1547·
10th Cir.·
1986-08-05
·cited 3×
The court held that when an oral sentence conflicts with a written judgment, the court must discern the sentencing judge's intent rather than automatically applying the oral sentence.
-
988 F.2d 4·
4th Cir.·
1993-02-26
·cited 2×
A district court cannot modify a sentence simply because it changes its mind about the appropriateness of the sentence after it has been imposed, absent specific grounds for correction under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
-
921 F.2d 563·
5th Cir.·
1991-01-04
·cited 2×
A re-entered order with a minor date correction does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal or a motion for an extension of time.
-
752 F.2d 1398·
9th Cir.·
1985-01-30
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not err in correcting the Judgment and Commitment Order to reflect cumulative fines, as the original order contained a clerical error.
-
231 F. Supp. 2d 1181·
M.D. Fla.·
2002-10-10
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over defendants' motions seeking to involve the United States in a state foreclosure action and seeking damages, as the criminal case was closed and the claims were not based on any rule or statute from the criminal case.
-
986 F.2d 100·
5th Cir.·
1993-03-09
The court held that the defendant's rights under the Speedy Trial Act and double jeopardy were not violated, and that the issue of materiality of perjury was foreclosed by a prior appeal.
-
825 F.2d 1334·
9th Cir.·
1987-08-19
A bail bondsman's reliance on an erroneous certificate of discharge from the clerk was unreasonable when the bondsman failed to ensure the defendant's appearance and was constructively aware of the failure.
-
450 F.2d 873·
1st Cir.·
1971-11-09
The court held that the evidence of morphine sulphate did not exceed the bill of particulars and that the defendant's objection to the jury instructions was untimely.
-
182 F.2d 956·
7th Cir.·
1950-06-22
The court held that acquittal on a conspiracy charge does not preclude conviction on substantive offenses, and that clerical errors in taxing costs can be corrected by the district court at any time.