United States v. Bettis ( 2004 )

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-6-2004
USA v. Bettis
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-1803
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Bettis" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1017.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1017
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 03-1803, 03-2533
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
MICHAEL BETTIS,
Appellant.
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00626-1)
District Judge: The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 26, 2004
BEFORE: NYGAARD, FUENTES, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: February 6, 2004)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Michael Bettis argues that the District Court erred by adding a twenty-four
month period of supervised release to a sentence that the Court had already entered two
months earlier. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18
U.S.C. § 3742(a). The Government concedes that the District Court’s sua sponte action
was error and we agree.
The facts of this case are well known to the parties and are not in dispute.
On March 17, 2003, the District Court entered an order sentencing Bettis to twelve
months imprisonment for violating the terms of his supervised release. On March 20,
2003, Bettis appealed this order.
On May 12, 2003, the District Court, sua sponte, issued a second order
imposing a period of twenty-four months of supervised release on Bettis after the
conclusion of his twelve-month sentence. This order was intended to “clarify” the March
17th order. (App. at 6a.) Bettis appealed this second order, and we consolidated it with
his prior appeal.
The Government correctly concedes that the District Court’s May 12th
order cannot be considered the correction of a clear error made within seven days after
sentencing, as is allowed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). The
2
Government also correctly concedes that the District Court’s imposition of this additional
term of supervised release is not the correction of a clerical error under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 36. Accordingly, as the Government also concedes, the District Court
lacked jurisdiction to add additional penalties to Bettis’ original sentence more than two
months after that sentence was imposed. See, e.g., United States v. Fraley, 988 F.2d 4, 7
(4th Cir. 1993).
We will vacate the District Court’s May 12, 2003 order.
3
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
_________________________________
Circuit Judge