UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6171
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ, a/k/a Bobby Seal,
a/k/a Bobby Seals, a/k/a Ahmed Abdel Aziz,
a/k/a Jerome Smith, a/k/a Michael Smith, a/k/a
Cedric Ellison, a/k/a Fretral McRae, a/k/a
Chreshan Allen,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-00-75)
Submitted: May 27, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis W. Duffy,
Assistant United States Attorney, Mary Jude Darrow, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ahmed Abdel-Aziz appeals the district court’s denials of his
motion for clarification and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for
reconsideration of the denial of his motion for clarification. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
The basis of this appeal is that the district court’s October
21, 2002, version of the docket sheet is internally inconsistent
with regard to Abdel-Aziz’s sentence on Counts Two and Three.
Specifically, the February 5, 2001, docket entry reflecting the
original judgment set forth, inter alia, Abdel-Aziz’s imprisonment
sentence as 100 months each on Counts Two and Three, while the
February 4, 2002, docket entry purportedly reflecting the Amended
Judgment* set forth Abdel-Aziz’s sentence on Counts Two and Three
as 60 months’ imprisonment each. The district court denied the
motion for clarification, ordering the clerk of courts to amend the
February 4, 2002, docket sheet entry to reflect the imprisonment
sentence as 100 months each on Counts Two and Three, which would
have made the entries consistent with one another, and consistent
with the prison sentence ordered in both the Judgment and the
Amended Judgment. The obvious inference in this case is that the
October 21, 2002, docket sheet annotation relative to the Amended
Judgment, which incorrectly reflected that the district court
*
While the written judgment and commitment order was amended
at the order of this court, the amendment does not affect the
analysis of this appeal.
2
ordered 60-month imprisonment sentences on Counts Two and Three
when, in fact, it had ordered a 100-month imprisonment sentence on
each of those two counts, was a clerical or typographical error.
As noted in our opinion in United States v. Abdel-Aziz, Appeal No.
02-7599, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, the district court has
jurisdiction at any time to correct clerical errors. Hence, Abdel-
Aziz’s claims are without merit, and we find that the district
court properly found that no relief was necessary on the motion for
clarification. Moreover, we find no abuse of discretion in the
district court’s denial of Abdel-Aziz’s motion for reconsideration.
Temkin v. Frederick County Comm’rs, 945 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir.
1991).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders denying
Abdel-Aziz’s motions for clarification and for reconsideration. 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.
AFFIRMED
3