UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7493
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH MASON SPRAGUE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (7:04-cr-00029-HMH-AL)
Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 1, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Mason Sprague, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Sprague appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for written order and for clarification of record,
following the denial of Sprague’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion. The
underlying basis for Sprague’s motion is that he seeks to have his
criminal judgment order amended to reflect satisfaction of the
restitution ordered by the district court, based upon the
forfeiture by the United States of a vehicle Sprague purchased
allegedly with proceeds from the bank robbery of which he was
convicted. We find no error in the district court’s denial of
Sprague’s motion. To the extent Sprague seeks to appeal the denial
of his request for clarification of the district court’s oral order
denying Sprague’s Rule 36 motion, we find no error. The docket
sheet clearly shows that the district court denied his motion for
clarification. To the extent Sprague seeks to challenge the
district court’s denial of the underlying Rule 36 motion,* we
likewise find no error. The judgment order is correct as entered.
The determination of whether Sprague’s restitution obligations have
been satisfied is a post-judgment accounting matter that does not
*
While it appears as though an appeal from the district
court’s denial of Sprague’s Rule 36 motion may be untimely, Sprague
has asserted that he did not receive notice of the denial of said
motion until the day before he filed his motion for written order
and motion for clarification. Even assuming, arguendo, that he
timely raised his challenge to the underlying order, given that
there is no error, clerical or otherwise, in Sprague’s judgment of
conviction, this challenge would be without merit.
- 2 -
affect the integrity of the original judgment of conviction. 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 -