Filed: March 28, 2007
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7840
(7:94-cr-40106-005)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JERMAINE LAVONNE CHASE,
Defendant - Appellant.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed March 23, 2007, as follows:
On the cover sheet, district court information section --
Judge Wilson’s name is deleted and is replaced by “Jackson L.
Kiser, Senior District Judge.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7840
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JERMAINE LAVONNE CHASE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:94-cr-40106-005)
Submitted: February 23, 2007 Decided: March 23, 2007
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Jermaine Lavonne Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Lavonne Chase appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion to correct
clerical error. Specifically, Chase seeks to have the Amended
Judgment entered November 3, 2000, corrected to include his
convictions for aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2
(2000) relative to Counts 4 and 68.* As the district court
recognized, all four substantive drug charges, i.e. the two
possession charges and the two aiding and abetting charges, are
incorporated in Chase’s Amended Judgment, by virtue of their
*
Chase’s original Judgment Order reflected the § 2 convictions
in Counts 4 and 68, but the Amended Judgment omitted direct
reference to the aiding and abetting convictions in the “Title &
Section” and “Nature of Offense” sections of the Amended Judgment
Order. Specifically, the prior Judgment Order, in pertinent part,
reads as follows:
Title & Section Nature of Offense Date Offense Count
Concluded Numbers
21:841(a)(1), Distribution of cocaine, 1/8/93 4
(b)(1)(C); aid and abet 8/30/94 68
18:2
In contrast, the November 3, 2000 Amended Judgment Order, in
pertinent part, reads as follows:
ADDITIONAL COUNTS OF CONVICTION
Title & Section Nature of Offense Date Offense Count
Concluded Numbers
21: U.S.C. 841(a)(1) Possess with intent 1/8/93 4
to distribute cocaine
base
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) Possess with intent 8/30/94 68
to distribute cocaine
powder
- 2 -
inclusion in Counts 4 and 68. However, Chase is correct that the
Amended Judgment does not directly reference his conviction of § 2
relative to either Count 4 or 68. Therefore, we vacate the
district court’s denial of Chase’s Rule 36 motion, and direct that
the district court correct the Amended Judgment pursuant to Rule
36. This correction, of course, will have no effect on Chase’s
term of imprisonment or term of supervised release, nor will it
restart the limitations period for filing a post-conviction
challenge under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996. We deny Chase’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
- 3 -