US v. Robert Brown

Filing 920090909

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4068

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT CURTIS BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00825-DCN-1)

Submitted:

August 21, 2009

Decided:

September 9, 2009

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Eric J. Klumb, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Robert Curtis Brown appeals the district court's On in

denial of his motion for amended sentence and judgment. appeal, Brown asserts that the district court erred

determining that it did not have authority to sentence him below his mandatory minimum sentence, in order that he receive credit for time spent in prison for violating his New York parole. Because the district court did not have jurisdiction to

entertain Brown's motion for amended sentence and judgment, we affirm. "`Every federal appellate court has a special

obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review.'" United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2008)

(quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986)) (alterations omitted). A district Id. court does not court's

assumption of jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. With limited exceptions, a district

have jurisdiction to modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed. 18 U.S.C. is § 3582(c) to (2006). Brown's None of the

exceptions,

however,

applicable

circumstances.

Pursuant to Rule 35(a), a court may correct a sentence within seven days of sentencing that resulted from "arithmetical,

technical, or other clear error." 2

Because Brown's motion was

filed

nearly

two

years

after

sentencing,

Rule

35(a)

was

unavailable to Brown.

Under Rule 36, a court may, at any time,

correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or in the record. However, Rule 36 does not allow a court to revisit a sentence to apply a downward departure to account for time served, as such a correction is "aimed at remedying an error of law, not an error of transcription." (2d Cir. 1995). Brown argues that the district court's statement that "[o]nce we find out whether the [Bureau of Prisons] give[s] him credit based on that, if we need to put anything else on the record, need to send them a letter, anything like that, I'll be glad to do that," was sufficient to allow the district court to retain jurisdiction that to Brown ensure get the enforcement time served of in its New United States v. Werber, 51 F.3d 342, 348

recommendation York.

credit

for

However, the assertion is belied by statute and Supreme Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (2006), a "defendant credit toward the service of a term of

Court precedent. shall be given

imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences." however, does not permit a district court Section 3585(b), to determine the

extent of such credit at sentencing. 503 U.S. 329, 334 (1992).

United States v. Wilson,

Only the Attorney General, acting

3

through the Bureau of Prisons, may compute sentencing credit. Id. at 334-35. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

4