N0. 01-2131 United States of America v. James Carroll Beckett

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
N0. 01-2131
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JAMES CARROLL BECKETT,
Appellant
On Appeal From The United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 91-cr-00121)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 25, 2002
BEFORE: NYGAARD, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges,
and SLEET, District Judge*
(Opinion filed February 5, 2002)
__________________________________
* Honorable Gregory M. Sleet, United States District Judge for the District of Delaware,
sitting by designation.
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant James Carroll Beckett was convicted of two bank robberies.
With respect to each of these robberies he was found guilty of one count of bank robbery
and one count of armed bank robbery. The Court determined that he was a career
offender but chose to depart downward from the Guideline range. It sentenced Beckett to
180 months on each of the four counts with these sentences to run concurrently. The
Court also ordered restitution without determining his ability to pay.
On appeal, the government conceded that the District Court had erred in not
making specific findings of fact concerning Beckett’s ability to pay restitution, and asked
the Court to remand for factual findings on this question alone. The government further
conceded that the District Court’s concurrent sentences of 180 months on Counts One and
Three (the bank robbery counts) violated the double jeopardy clause. The charges
underlying those counts were lesser included offenses to those set forth in Counts Two

-- 1 of 2 --

and Four (the armed bank robbery counts). The government noted, however, that the
Court could remedy the error without remand by vacating the sentence as to the lesser
included offenses.
This Court entered the following judgment:
the judgment of the []district court entered February 11, 1999
. . . is hereby reversed and remanded for factual findings on
the question of Beckett’s ability to pay restitution. The
judgment is vacated insofar as the sentence imposed as to the
lesser included offense of bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. Section 2113(a), charged in Counts One and Three of
the Indictment of March 26, 1991. The judgment is affirmed
as to all other issues. All of the above in accordance with the
opinion of this Court.
(App. xii-xiii).
The portion of the Court’s Opinion which addressed Beckett’s successful
double jeopardy claim made clear that the remand was limited to factual findings on his
ability to pay and would not affect the sentence of imprisonment imposed:
Beckett, the government, and we also agree that the District
Court erred by sentencing him concurrently on both the
charge of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. 2113(d), and
on the lesser included offense of robbery under 18 U.S.C.
2113(a). . . . We will vacate the sentence imposed on Counts
One and Three, the lesser included offenses of bank robbery.
Beckett’s sentences for the remaining counts stand.
(emphasis added) (App. xxvi-xxvii).
Beckett filed a pro se Motion for Order for Home Detention shortly before
the proceeding. The motion asked the Court to convert the balance of his 180 month
imprisonment sentence to home detention. The District Court acknowledged the motion
at the hearing on Beckett’s ability to pay restitution but stated that it lacked jurisdiction
address it:
The Court of Appeals vacated the sentence on the robbery
counts, affirmed the sentence on the armed robbery counts
and remanded merely for me to make factual findings with
respect to the ability or lack of ability to pay restitution in the
amount of eleven thousand and some dollars.
(App. 22).
Beckett argues that the District Court erred in determining that it lacked
jurisdiction to consider his request that his sentence of incarceration be altered. However,
we agree with the District Court that it lacked such jurisdiction. United States v.
Pultrone, 241 F.3d 306 (3d Cir. 2001).
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ Walter K. Stapleton
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --