2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-5-2002

USA v. Beckett

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 1-2131

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Beckett" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 102.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/102
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 N0. 01-2131 

 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

 JAMES CARROLL BECKETT, 

 Appellant 

 

 On Appeal From The United States District Court 

 For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

 (D.C. Crim. No. 91-cr-00121) 

 District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr. 

 

 Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 January 25, 2002 

 BEFORE: NYGAARD, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, 

 and SLEET, District Judge* 

 (Opinion filed February 5, 2002) 

 

__________________________________ 

* Honorable Gregory M. Sleet, United States District Judge for the 

District of Delaware, 

 sitting by designation.
 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT 

 

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: 

 Appellant James Carroll Beckett was convicted of two bank 

robberies. 

With respect to each of these robberies he was found guilty of one count 

of bank robbery 

and one count of armed bank robbery. The Court determined that he was a 

career 

offender but chose to depart downward from the Guideline range. It 

sentenced Beckett to 

180 months on each of the four counts with these sentences to run 

concurrently. The 

Court also ordered restitution without determining his ability to pay. 

 On appeal, the government conceded that the District Court had 

erred in not 

making specific findings of fact concerning Beckett's ability to pay 

restitution, and asked 

the Court to remand for factual findings on this question alone. The 

government further 

conceded that the District Court's concurrent sentences of 180 months on 

Counts One and 

Three (the bank robbery counts) violated the double jeopardy clause. The 

charges 

underlying those counts were lesser included offenses to those set forth 

in Counts Two 

and Four (the armed bank robbery counts). The government noted, however, 

that the 

Court could remedy the error without remand by vacating the sentence as to 

the lesser 

included offenses. 

 This Court entered the following judgment:

 the judgment of the []district court entered February 

11, 1999 

 . . . is hereby reversed and remanded for factual findings on 

 the question of Beckett's ability to pay restitution. The 

 judgment is vacated insofar as the sentence imposed as to the 

 lesser included offense of bank robbery, in violation of 18 

 U.S.C. Section 2113(a), charged in Counts One and Three of 

 the Indictment of March 26, 1991. The judgment is affirmed 

 as to all other issues. All of the above in accordance with the 

 opinion of this Court. 

(App. xii-xiii). 

 The portion of the Court's Opinion which addressed Beckett's 

successful 
double jeopardy claim made clear that the remand was limited to factual 

findings on his 

ability to pay and would not affect the sentence of imprisonment imposed: 

 Beckett, the government, and we also agree that the 

District 

 Court erred by sentencing him concurrently on both the 

 charge of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C.  2113(d), and 

 on the lesser included offense of robbery under 18 U.S.C. 

 2113(a). . . . We will vacate the sentence imposed on Counts 

 One and Three, the lesser included offenses of bank robbery. 

 Beckett's sentences for the remaining counts stand. 

(emphasis added) (App. xxvi-xxvii). 

 Beckett filed a pro se Motion for Order for Home Detention 

shortly before 

the proceeding. The motion asked the Court to convert the balance of his 

180 month 

imprisonment sentence to home detention. The District Court acknowledged 

the motion 

at the hearing on Beckett's ability to pay restitution but stated that it 

lacked jurisdiction to 

address it: 

 The Court of Appeals vacated the sentence on the robbery 

 counts, affirmed the sentence on the armed robbery counts 

 and remanded merely for me to make factual findings with 

 respect to the ability or lack of ability to pay restitution in 

the 

 amount of eleven thousand and some dollars. 

(App. 22). 

 

 Beckett argues that the District Court erred in determining that 

it lacked 

jurisdiction to consider his request that his sentence of incarceration be 

altered. However, 

we agree with the District Court that it lacked such jurisdiction. United 

States v. 

Pultrone, 241 F.3d 306 (3d Cir. 2001). 

 The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing Memorandum Opinion. 

 /s/ Walter K. Stapleton 

 Circuit 

Judge