Court Opinion

ID: 990367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:20:18.851532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:35.595948
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 95-5695

WANDA BREEDEN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-94-30135)

Submitted: August 22, 1996

Decided: September 12, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Elgine H. McArdle, PHILLIPS, GARDILL, KAISER & ALT-
MEYER, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. William D. Wil-
moth, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United
States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Wanda Breeden pled guilty to aiding and abetting the distribution
of crack cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1988),
21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 860 (West 1981 & Supp. 1996). She appeals her
sentence, alleging that the district court erred in failing to make find-
ings concerning a downward departure based on letters she submitted
to the court two months after she was sentenced. We affirm.

Breeden did not request a downward departure at her sentencing
hearing in August 1995. The district court sentenced her to 37 months
imprisonment, the lowest point of her guideline range. In October
1995, Breeden wrote to the district court requesting a sentence of
home confinement because of the hardship her imprisonment was
causing her two teenage sons. Breeden's former employer also wrote
the court that he would be happy to hire her again if she were on
home detention. The court subsequently granted Breeden's motion to
supplement the record on appeal with the two letters.

Breeden now contends that the district court erred in failing to
make additional findings concerning the effect of the letters on the
sentence previously imposed. We disagree. By not requesting a depar-
ture at the sentencing hearing, Breeden forfeited the issue. Most
important, because the original sentence was not in error, once the
district court unequivocally stated the sentence and imposed it, the
court lacked authority to change it. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(c); United
States v. Fraley, 988 F.2d 4, 7 (4th Cir. 1993).

We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2