U.S.v.Chase

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth CircuitMar 23, 2007
222 Fed. Appx. 253 (4th Cir. 2007)

No. 06-7840.

Submitted: February 23, 2007.

Decided: March 23, 2007.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:94-cr-40106-005).

Jermaine Lavonne Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Jermaine Lavonne Chase appeals the district court's order denying relief on his Fed.R.Crim.P. 36 motion to correct clerical error. Specifically, Chase seeks to have the Amended Judgment entered November 3, 2000, corrected to include his convictions for aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000) relative to Counts 4 and 68. As the district court recognized, all four substantive drug charges, i.e. the two possession charges and the two aiding and abetting charges, are incorporated in Chase's Amended Judgment, by virtue of their inclusion in Counts 4 and 68. However, Chase is correct that the Amended Judgment does not directly reference his conviction of § 2 relative to either Count 4 or 68. Therefore, we vacate the district court's denial of Chase's Rule 36 motion, and direct that the district court correct the Amended Judgment pursuant to Rule 36. This correction, of course, will have no effect on Chase's term of imprisonment or term of supervised release, nor will it restart the limitations period for filing a post-conviction challenge under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. We deny Chase's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

Chase's original Judgment Order reflected the § 2 convictions in Counts 4 and 68, but the Amended Judgment omitted direct reference to the aiding and abetting convictions in the "Title Section" and "Nature of Offense" sections of the Amended Judgment Order. Specifically, the prior Judgment Order, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
Title Section Nature of Offense Concluded Numbers

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

ADDITIONAL COUNTS OF CONVICTION

Title Section Nature of Offense Concluded Numbers 21 U.S.C. 841 Date Offense Count 21:841(a)(1), Distribution of cocaine, 1/8/93 4 (b)(1)(C); aid and abet 8/30/94 68 18:2 In contrast, the November 3, 2000 Amended Judgment Order, in pertinent part, reads as follows: Date Offense Count 21: U.S.C. 841(a)(1) Possess with intent to 1/8/93 4 distribute cocaine base (a)(1) Possess with intent to 8/30/94 68 distribute cocaine powder