United States of America v. Barrington Isaacs, a/k/a Orville Griswold

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4044
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BARRINGTON ISAACS, a/k/a Orville Griswold,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-98-356)
Submitted: February 18, 2004 Decided: February 27, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew D. Grimes, ANDREW D. GRIMES, P.A., Summerville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States
Attorney, Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In 1999, Barrington Isaacs was convicted and sentenced
for participation in a conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, conspiracy
to import cocaine, and conspiracy to engage in money laundering.
In December 2002, the district court entered an amended judgment
for correction of sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 to
include an omitted reference to an order of forfeiture. Isaacs now
seeks to appeal the amended criminal judgment.
Rule 36 provides that “[a]fter giving any notice it
considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical
error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct
an error in the record arising from oversight or omission.” We
have reviewed the transcript of the sentencing hearing and the
order of forfeiture that was executed by the district court at the
hearing, and find that the court properly amended the judgment to
accurately reflect its intention at sentencing to include the
forfeiture in the judgment. We have also reviewed Isaacs’s claim
that the district court failed to provide him with adequate notice
of the Government’s motion to modify the criminal judgment and find
no reversible error in this regard. Accordingly, we affirm the
amended criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --