US v. Jason Poole, No. 09-8215 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed: February 7, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8215 (8:96-cr-00238-AW-l; 8:09-cv-01440-AW) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JASON CONRAD POOLE, Defendant - Appellant. O R D E R The Court amends its opinion filed February 4, 2011, as follows: On page 2, line 5 of the footnote -- the word abused is corrected to read absurd. For the Court By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8215 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JASON CONRAD POOLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:96-cr-00238-AW-l; 8:09-cv-01440-AW) Submitted: October 20, 2010 Decided: February 4, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert W. Biddle, Booth M. Ripke, NATHANS & BIDDLE LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Barbara S. Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jason Conrad Poole appeals the district court s order denying relief on his motions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 and granting his motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We have Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its written order. United States v. Poole, Nos. 8:96-cr-00238-AW-1; 8:09-cv-01440-AW (D. Md. Dec. 4, 2009). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * We note the discrepancy between the oral sentence of 210 months and the revised order granting Poole s § 3582(c)(2) motion which imposes the mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months. We find the oral sentence ambiguous because its plain meaning would lead to an irrational or absurd result. United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448, 1453 n.6 (10th Cir. 1987) (en banc). Therefore, we affirm the written sentencing order. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.