United States v. Frank Wiggs Bennett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “corrections allowed by Rule 36 . . . ha[ve] no time limit”
• relying, in part, on United States v. Loe, 248 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2001)
• describing use of Rule 36 to correct clerical errors in the judgment
• applying the de novo standard to Rule 36 question of law
• “[I]t is clear that the final order of forfeiture can be imposed only as part of the sentence[.]”
• “Rule 36 does not authorize the sentencing court to correct a sentence imposed in violation of law, as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing Guidelines, or to otherwise substantively modify sentences.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).