Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02690/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02690-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Douglas J. Turner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2690

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Douglas J. Turner, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 2, 2007

Filed: October 5, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Douglas J. Turner appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 36 motion to correct an error in his 151-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea to a drug charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw and

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1976), challenging the denial

of the Rule 36 motion without a hearing. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-2690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2007 Entry ID: 3359307
-2-

Rule 36 states that “the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a

judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising

from oversight or omission.” Here, the oral pronouncement of sentence did not differ

from the written judgment (or any other part of the record), and we conclude that the

district court’s failure to specify, sua sponte, whether Turner’s federal sentence would

run concurrently with or consecutively to any future state sentence was not an error,

clerical or otherwise. See United States v. Ferguson, 918 F.2d 627, 628-30 (6th Cir.

1990) (per curiam) (district court properly denied defendant’s request to correct

federal sentence to run concurrently with subsequently imposed state sentence because

such relief was not within ambit of Rule 36’s power to correct clerical errors,

oversights, and omissions); see also Romandine v. United States, 206 F.3d 731, 736

(7th Cir. 2000) (requests for sentence credit must be presented to Attorney General or

Bureau of Prisons, and adverse decisions may be reviewed in 28 U.S.C. § 2241

action).

We have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal after our review of the record

under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw. We deny Turner’s motion for substitute counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2690 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2007 Entry ID: 3359307