Court Opinion

ID: 9556634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 00:00:40.26891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:22.386955
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50042         Document: 00516862619             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/17/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50042
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                August 17, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Brianna Irene Bustam,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:22-CR-455-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Defendant-Appellant Brianna Irene Bustam appeals her sentence,
   asserting that the district court erred by not applying a two level safety-valve
   reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1)(18). See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2;
   18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Bustam has moved for summary affirmance because her
   arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Palomares, 52 F.4th 640 (5th Cir.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50042      Document: 00516862619          Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/17/2023

                                    No. 23-50042

   2022). We agree and grant Bustam’s motion. In Palomares, we used a
   “distributive approach” to interpret § 3553(f)(1) and concluded that
   criminal defendants are “ineligible for safety-valve relief under § 3553(f)(1)
   if they run afoul of any one of its requirements.” Id. at 647.
          However, we note sua sponte that the district court was divested of its
   jurisdiction, pending this appeal, to issue an amended judgment pursuant to
   Criminal Rule 36, as it did here. See United States v. Lucero, 755 F. App’x 384,
   387 (5th Cir. 2018) (“In a criminal case, an effective notice of appeal divests
   the district court of jurisdiction, and a district court cannot use a Rule 36
   motion to reacquire it and entertain a later-filed motion to correct a clerical
   error.”). Bustam’s notice of appeal was filed January 18, 2023, yet an
   amended judgment was entered on January 23. We therefore vacate the
   amended judgment and remand for the limited purpose of permitting the
   district court to correct the judgment in accordance with Rule 36 now that
   this appeal is resolved. See id.; United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942
   (5th Cir. 2001) (“[W]here there is any variation between the oral and written
   pronouncements of sentence, the oral sentence prevails.”).
          Bustam’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED and the
   original judgment is AFFIRMED. But we VACATE the amended judgment
   and REMAND for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error related
   to the term of supervised release.

                                          2