Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Clay, 02-20463 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 02-20463 Visitors: 53
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
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer