United States of America v. Roy Allen Green

1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-4467
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ROY ALLEN GREEN,
Appellant
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim. No. 01-cr-00397 )
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
November 16, 2004
Before: ROTH, SMITH and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed December 1, 2004)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
The defendant’s conviction and sentence on one count of assault with intent
to commit murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1) was affirmed by this Court at
docket number 02-3906. We remanded only for correction of the restitution order which

-- 1 of 2 --

2
did not specify the manner and schedule of restitution in the amount of $1,439.56.
In the defendant’s absence, the District Court modified its restitution order
to read: “The restitution imposed in this case shall be due immediately, shall be paid
through the Clerk, U.S. District Court for disbursement to the Bureau of Prisons, and is
payable during the period of incarceration with any balance to be paid within two (2)
years of release from custody. All other aspects of the sentence shall remain as
previously imposed.”
Defendant was represented by counsel during his first appeal, but now
proceeds pro se, contending that he should have been present when the restitutionary
order was amended. He also objects to its entry without consideration of his financial
condition and because it does not establish a monthly repayment schedule. Defendant
asserts that his total incarceration sentence amounts to sixty-nine years, 10-months, and
that he has no assets.
The District Court complied with our direction in the defendant’s first
appeal. The issue was an administrative matter and did not affect the sentence in any
material aspect. Accordingly, the defendant had no right to be present when the amended
order was entered. The defendant’s financial condition was duly considered when the
original order of restitution was entered. That issue was not the subject of our remand.
The motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot.
Accordingly, the order of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --