Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Preston Everett, 13-6966 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-6966 Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6966 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. PRESTON CORNELIUS EVERETT, a/k/a P, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00019-LMB-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and reman
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6966 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. PRESTON CORNELIUS EVERETT, a/k/a P, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00019-LMB-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Preston Cornelius Everett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Preston Cornelius Everett appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to correct a clerical error in his 2005 criminal judgment. For the reasons that follow, we vacate and remand. Everett specifically sought relief under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 to correct an alleged clerical error in his criminal judgment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The district court treated the motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) and dismissed the action as untimely because Rule 35(a) motions must be filed within fourteen days of sentencing. Rule 36 relief, however, may be granted at any time, as delineated in the Rule itself. Thus, we vacate and remand for the district court to address Everett’s motion under Rule 36. We express no opinion as to the merits of any Rule 36 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 2
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