United States v. Nesbitt

609 F. App'x 144
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 1, 2015
DocketNo. 15-6274
StatusPublished

This text of 609 F. App'x 144 (United States v. Nesbitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Nesbitt, 609 F. App'x 144 (4th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

[145]*145Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Julius Nesbitt appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to correct the court’s amended criminal judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. To the extent the district court’s oral pronouncements at sentencing created any ambiguity, we find that its written judgment unambiguously clarified its intent. See United States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 283 n. 1 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding that when the sentencing transcript is ambiguous, we look to written criminal judgment to resolve ambiguity). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Betty Anne Osborne
345 F.3d 281 (Fourth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
609 F. App'x 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-nesbitt-ca4-2015.