Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermaine Lavonne CHASE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-23
Citations: 222 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 06-7840
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermaine Lavonne CHASE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermaine Lavonne CHASE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7840.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2007.
Decided: March 23, 2007.
Jermaine Lavonne Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Lavonne Chase appeals the district court's order denying relief on his Fed.R.Crim.P. 36 motion to correct clerical error. Specifically, Chase seeks to have the Amended Judgment entered November 3, 2000, corrected to include his convictions for aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000) relative to Counts 4 and 68. As the district court recognized, all four substantive drug charges, i.e. the two possession charges and the two aiding and abetting charges, are incorporated in Chase's Amended Judgment, by virtue of their inclusion in Counts 4 and 68. However, Chase is correct that the Amended Judgment does not directly reference his conviction of § 2 relative to either Count 4 or 68. Therefore, we vacate the district court's denial of Chase's Rule 36 motion, and direct that the district court correct the Amended Judgment pursuant to Rule 36. This correction, of course, will have no effect on Chase's term of imprisonment or term of supervised release, nor will it restart the limitations period for filing a post-conviction challenge under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. We deny Chase's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Chase's original Judgment Order reflected the § 2 convictions in Counts 4 and 68, but the Amended Judgment omitted direct reference to the aiding and abetting convictions in the "Title & Section" and "Nature of Offense" sections of the Amended Judgment Order. Specifically, the prior Judgment Order, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
Title & Section Nature of Offense Date Offense Concluded Count Numbers
21:841(a)(l), Distribution of cocaine, 1/8/93 4
(b)(1)(C); 18:2 aid and abet 8/30/94 68
In contrast, the November 3, 2000 Amended Judgment Order, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
ADDITIONAL COUNTS OF CONVICTION
Title & Section Nature of Offense Date Offense Concluded Count Numbers 21: U.S.C. 841(a)(1) Possess with intent to distribute cocaine base 1/8/93 4
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) Possess with intent to distribute cocaine powder 8/30/94 68