Filed: February 7, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8215
(8:96-cr-00238-AW-l; 8:09-cv-01440-AW)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASON CONRAD POOLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
O R D E R
The Court amends its opinion filed February 4, 2011,
as follows:
On page 2, line 5 of the footnote -- the word “abused”
is corrected to read “absurd.”
For the Court – By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8215
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASON CONRAD POOLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:96-cr-00238-AW-l; 8:09-cv-01440-AW)
Submitted: October 20, 2010 Decided: February 4, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert W. Biddle, Booth M. Ripke, NATHANS & BIDDLE LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Barbara S. Skalla, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Conrad Poole appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his motions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2010) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 and granting his motion to
reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its
written order. United States v. Poole, Nos. 8:96-cr-00238-AW-1;
8:09-cv-01440-AW (D. Md. Dec. 4, 2009). * 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
*
We note the discrepancy between the oral sentence of 210
months and the revised order granting Poole’s § 3582(c)(2)
motion which imposes the mandatory minimum sentence of 240
months. We find the oral sentence ambiguous because its plain
meaning would lead to “an irrational or absurd result.” United
States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448, 1453 n.6 (10th Cir. 1987) (en
banc). Therefore, we affirm the written sentencing order.
2