UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-4347
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONNIE LEE DUNN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. William B. Traxler, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-97-761)
Submitted: April 9, 1999 Decided: April 27, 1999
Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Carlyle Steele, Jr., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, A. Bradley Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Lee Dunn appeals his convictions for armed bank robbery
and use of a firearm during a crime of violence. Dunn alleges the
district court erred in two respects. First, that the court vio-
lated Fed. R. Evid. 609 by denying his pretrial motion in limine.
Second, that the court erred by determining that he should be
sentenced as a career offender. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 4B1.1 (1997). We have reviewed the issues raised by coun-
sel and find no reversible error. Thus, we affirm Dunn’s convic-
tion and sentence.*
We do note, however, that the district court’s Judgment and
Commitment Order appears to have a clerical error with respect to
Dunn’s conviction for use of a firearm during a crime of violence.
The judgment properly notes that Dunn’s conviction for Count Two of
the superseding indictment is a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §
924(c)(1) (West Supp. 1999) but erroneously describes the crime as
“[p]ossession of a firearm by a convicted felon” rather than a
conviction for using and carrying a firearm during a crime of
violence. Either party may file a motion in the district court to
correct this typographical error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
*
We grant Dunn’s motion for leave to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but find no merit in the issues raised by Dunn.
2
are adequately addressed in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
United States v. Ronnie Lee Dunn
Combined Opinion