Opinion ID: 1033503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: accuracy of the judgment

Text: Although the parties do not address it, we raise sua sponte the issue of whether the final judgment accurately reflects Bodison’s convictions. 10 The final written judgment reflects his conviction on Count 4 for an offense involving crack cocaine, MDMA, and BZP. However, Count 4 alleged that Bodison’s offense involved only crack cocaine and MDMA. The jury found that the offense involved only crack cocaine. Therefore, the judgment should state that, on Count 4, Bodison was convicted of an offense involving only crack cocaine. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for the district court to correct the clerical error. 10 We may sua sponte raise the issue of clerical errors in a judgment and we may remand with instructions to the district court to correct those errors. United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 822 (11th Cir. 2006). It is a fundamental error for a district court “to enter a judgment of conviction against a defendant who has not been charged, tried, or found guilty of the crime recited in the judgment.” United States v. James, 642 F.3d 1333, 1343 (11th Cir. 2011). 21 Case: 12-15812 Date Filed: 07/11/2013 Page: 22 of 22