Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Donnell PRICE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-27
Citations: 237 F. App'x 936
Docket Number: No. 06-11102
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Donnell PRICE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 237
Pages: 936–937

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Donnell PRICE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-11102
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 27, 2007.
Susan B. Cowger, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Donnell Price appeals from the judgment of the district court revoking his four concurrent terms of supervised release, imposing new terms of imprisonment, and imposing new terms of supervised release. Price contends that the district court lacked authority under Fed. R.Crim.P. 35 to correct the judgment sua sponte. Price challenges the correction of the judgment to reduce his terms of imprisonment on two counts from 24 months to 23 months and his terms of supervised release from 24 months to 13 months.
The district court's corrected judgment imposed a legally correct sentence following the revocation of supervised release. See Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 705-07, 712-13, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000). Moreover, the corrected judgment benefited Price by reducing his sentence on the two counts at issue in this appeal. Any possible error by the district court in correcting the judgment was harmless. See United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 412-13 (5th Cir.1998).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.