Bridgeport

United States v. Bridgeport

Good Law
852 F.2d 1290
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 26, 198836-3_16California509 words

Opinion

Opinion

852 F.2d 1290 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony James BRIDGEPORT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 87-1062. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 22, 1988 * . Decided July 26, 1988. Before WALLACE, SNEED, and POOLE, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Anthony James Bridgeport, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Crim.P. 36 motion to correct his sentence. This motion is the third Rule 36 motion Bridgeport has filed. The first was filed on October 1, 1986, and asked the district court to correct his prison sentence by crediting him with the time he spent released on bond pending trial and appeal. The district court denied the motion on two alternative grounds: either the motion was intended as a Rule 35 motion, in which case it was untimely filed; or it was in fact a Rule 36 motion, which necessarily is limited to correction of clerical errors. The court found that there were no clerical errors…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.