Court Opinion

ID: 2965980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:47:14.477652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:51.465347
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATIONNOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-1869

                          UNITED STATES,

                            Appellee,

                                v.

                         ROBERT M. BARRY,

                      Defendant, Appellant.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                    Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                        Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     Robert M. Barry on brief pro se.
     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Robert E.
Richardson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

September 16, 1999

                                
                                

  
  
            Per Curiam.  Defendant Robert M. Barry appeals from
  the denial of his motion to correct his sentence, filed under
  Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.  We have carefully reviewed the record and
  the parties' briefs and conclude that the addition of
  restitution in the written judgment of conviction was
  authorized by Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(c).  See United States v.
  Uccio, 917 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1990).  Because the district court
  had the power to make this correction, there is no error in the
  written judgment and defendant is not entitled to its
  correction.
            The judgment of the district court is affirmed.  See
  Local Rule 27.1.