Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01419/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01419-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sedrick Devon Noble
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1418

No. 05-1419

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeals from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Sedrick Devon Noble, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 3, 2006

Filed: May 3, 2006 

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sedrick Devon Noble appeals the 28-year prison sentence he agreed to and the

district court imposed after Noble pleaded guilty to armed robbery and gun charges.

On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Having carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio. 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Although the district court’s written

judgment does not specify the prison term attributable to each of the four counts to

which Noble pleaded guilty, it rather gives a single sentence of 28 years

Appellate Case: 05-1419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040346
-2-

imprisonment. We conclude that remand for clarification is unnecessary because the

district court’s intent is clear from its oral pronouncement at sentencing. Thus, we

modify the district court’s written judgment to reflect, in district court case No.

4:04CR40014-002, concurrent 8-year prison terms for Counts 1 and 4, and a

consecutive 10-year prison term for Count 2, and in district court case No.

4:04CR40016-001, an additional consecutive10-year prison term for Count 2,

resulting in a total prison sentence of 28 years. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (appellate court

may modify any judgment of court brought before it for review); cf. United States v.

Ashland, Inc., 356 F.3d 871, 875 (8th Cir. 2004) (excising objectionable conditions

of probation and letting sentence stand as modified, because the objectionable

conditions were relatively minor and were not integral part of district court’s

judgment); United States v. Mills, 9 F.3d 1132, 1139 (5th Cir. 1993) (modifying

sentence instead of remanding where there was no doubt district court’s intent was to

sentence defendant to maximum term permitted under applicable range, and it would

waste judicial resources to remand case for rote imposition of highest term of

incarceration permitted). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment as modified, and we grant

counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1419 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040346