United States v. Darrin Davis , 610 F. App'x 342 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrin Marcus Davis appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to six
months’ imprisonment and two years of supervised release.
Davis’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether 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. The district court sua sponte
entered an amended judgment that conformed to its oral
pronouncement requiring electronic monitoring. We conclude that
the omission in the initial written judgment was a clerical
error and that the district court did not err by correcting it
sua sponte. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s amended
revocation judgment. This court requires that counsel inform
2
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