Filed: Jan. 22, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-20463 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LONNIE LEE CLAY, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-668-1 - January 22, 2003 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lonnie Lee Clay appeals his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery. Clay asserts, and the Government concedes, that the wr
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-20463 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LONNIE LEE CLAY, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-668-1 - January 22, 2003 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lonnie Lee Clay appeals his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery. Clay asserts, and the Government concedes, that the wri..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20463
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LONNIE LEE CLAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-668-1
--------------------
January 22, 2003
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lonnie Lee Clay appeals his guilty-plea conviction for bank
robbery. Clay asserts, and the Government concedes, that the
written judgment, which states that Clay’s federal sentence is to
run consecutively with his undischarged state sentence, conflicts
with the district court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing that the
federal sentence should run partially concurrent with Clay’s
undischarged state sentence.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-20463
-2-
An oral pronouncement of judgment will control over the
written judgment if the two conflict. United States v. Martinez,
250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the judgment is
VACATED and the case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of
allowing the district court to amend its written judgment to
conform to its oral judgment at sentencing. See
Martinez, 250 F.3d
at 942.
JUDGMENT VACATED AND CASE REMANDED FOR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT.