2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-6-2004 

# U S A v . B ett i s P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1803

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Be tt i s " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1017. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/1017NOT PRE CEDENT IAL THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ Nos. 03-1803, 03-2533

___________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

vs. MICHA EL BETTIS,

Ap pellan t.

___________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE EA STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

(D.C. Crimi nal No. 01-cr -00626-1) Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

January26, 2004
BE FO RE : NY GA AR D, F UE NT ES , and ST AP LE TO N, Circu it Judges . (Fil ed: February 6, 2004)

___________2 OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________ NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge .

Michael Bettis ar gues that the Dist rict Court erred by addi ng a twenty -four mon thpe ri od o f s upe rv is ed re le as e t o a se nt en ce th at th e Co ur t h ad al re ad y en te re d t wo months earl ier. We have juris dicti on over thi s appeal unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). The G overnment concedes that the District Court’s sua spon te acti on was error and we agree.

Th e fa cts o f this cas e are we ll kn ow n to the p artie s an d ar e no t in d ispu te. On M arch 17, 2003, the Dist rict Court ente red an order sentenci ng Betti s to twelve months impri sonment for vi olati ng the te rms of his s upervis ed rele ase. On March 20, 2003, B ettis appealed this orde r.

On M ay 12 , 200 3, th e D istrict Co urt, sua spon te , is sued a second or der imposing a period of twenty- four months of s upervis ed rele ase on Bettis after the conclusi on of his twelve-month sentence. This order was i ntended t o “clarify ” the March 17th orde r. (Ap p. at 6a .) Bettis a ppea led this s econ d ord er, and we cons olidate d it w ith his prio r app eal.

The Go vern men t correc tly conce des th at the D istrict Co urt’s M ay 12th order cannot

be considered the correcti on of a clear error made within se ven days after sentenci ng, as i s all owed under Federal Rule of CriminalProcedure 35( a). The3

Government also c orrectlyconcedes that theDistri ct Court’ s imposi tion of t his addi tional term of supervised r elease is not the correcti on of a clerical error under FederalRule of Civil Proce dure 36 . Accord ingly, as the Gove rnmen t also conced es, the District Cou rt la ck ed ju ri sd ic ti on to a dd a ddi ti onal p en al ti es to Betti s’ or ig in al se nt en ce mor e tha n t wo mo nth s af ter th at se nten ce w as im pos ed. See, e.g., United Stat es v. Fraley , 988 F.2 d 4, 7 (4th Cir. 1993 ).

We will vacate the D istrict Court’s M ay 12, 2003 o rder._________________________

TO THE C LERK:

Please fi le theforegoing opi nion. /s/ Richard L . Nygaard

_________________________________ Circuit Judge