Opinion ID: 795316
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Forfeiture Award

Text: 83 Next, Edelmann contends that the district court was without authority to amend the judgment to include a missing forfeiture award because the failure to include such an order is not a clerical error but a judicial or attorney error. 84 We previously addressed this issue in United States v. Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666 (8th Cir.2003). We stated: 85 After seven days, the court retains the power only to correct clerical errors. Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. Mr. Porrello argues that adding a forfeiture order constitutes more than a correction of a clerical error. If the judge had never before addressed the forfeiture issue, we might agree with Mr. Porrello. In light of the Court's earlier entry of a preliminary forfeiture order, however, we conclude that the omission did constitute a clerical error. See United States v. Loe, 248 F.3d 449 (5th Cir.2001) (holding that a judge who failed to include a final forfeiture order in the formal written sentencing could amend that judgment as a clerical error when he had already entered a preliminary forfeiture order and indicated at the sentencing hearing that he would include that order in the judgment). Because the error was clerical, the District Court retained jurisdiction to correct it. We thus find no error in the District Court's entry of the forfeiture order. 86 Id. at 673. 87 Because the district court entered a preliminary order on July 13, 2004, and a Final Judgment of Forfeiture on October 22, 2004, its omission of the forfeiture in its final judgment on July 20, 2005, was a clerical error that the district court retained jurisdiction to correct.