US v. Darrin Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:08-cr-00869-TLW-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999631022]. [15-4015]

Appeal: 15-4015

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/30/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DARRIN MARCUS DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:08-cr-00869-TLW-1)

Submitted:

June 30, 2015

Decided:

July 30, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William F. Nettles, IV, Mark C. McLawhorn, Assistant Federal
Public Defenders, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4015

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/30/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Darrin
revoking
months’
Davis’

Marcus

his

Davis

appeals

supervised

imprisonment
counsel
386

meritorious

and

release

district
sentencing

and

U.S.

grounds

two

years

of

filed

has

California,

the

a

brief

pursuant

738
for

(1967),
appeal

stating

but

court’s
him

supervised
to

that

to

six

release.

Anders

there

questioning

order

v.

are

whether

no
the

district court erred by filing an amended judgment containing an
additional condition of Davis’ supervised release.

Davis was

advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
has not filed one.

We affirm.

In pronouncing sentence, the district court ordered that
Davis be subject to electronic monitoring as a condition of his
supervised release.

However, the written judgment that followed

did not include this condition.
entered

an

amended

judgment

The district court sua sponte
that

conformed

pronouncement requiring electronic monitoring.
the

omission

in

the

initial

written

judgment

to

its

oral

We conclude that
was

a

clerical

error and that the district court did not err by correcting it
sua sponte.
In

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal.

We

therefore

revocation judgment.

affirm

the

district

court’s

amended

This court requires that counsel inform
2

Appeal: 15-4015

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/30/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review.

If Davis requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on Davis.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3