Whether the exception to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) applies to a district court's sua sponte amendment of a final judgment when a defendant did not have an opportunity to object

No question identified. : the Fourth Circuit’s unpublished opinion in this case is attached as Exhibit 1, and a copy of the Fourth Circuit’s denial of the petition for rehearing en banc is attached as Exhibit 2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). This case presents an important issue on appellate procedure on which the Courts of Appeals have adopted divergent approaches: Does the exception to the rule in Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) apply to claimed errors arising from a district court sva sponte amending a final judgment. Rule 52(b) specifies the means by which a criminal defendant can preserve an objection for appellate review but includes an exception to the requirement that provides: “If a party does not have an opportunity to object to a ruling or order, the absence of an objection does not later prejudice that party.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Whether this exception applies can be the determinative factor in a litigant receiving any telief from an erroneous court order, because a court of appeals has strictly circumscribed power to correct forfeited errors, Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). This Court has often stepped in to ensure a proper, uniform national standard in appellate review standards. See ¢.g., Holguin-Hernandex v. United States, 589 U.S. _, 140 S. Ct. 762 (2020) (resolving differences amongst Courts of Appeals on whether a defendant’s argument for a different sentence preserved a claim on appeal that the sentence was substantively unreasonable); Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 US. , 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (reversing Fifth Circuit’s outlier approach to whether a forfeited error in a defendant’s Guidelines calculation seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings); Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (2013) (resolving differences amongst the Courts of Appeals over when an error must be plain under Rule 52(b)). In addition to preparing this petition, counsel is also responsible for meeting deadlines in numerous other cases, including United States v. Gross, Fourth Circuit No. 22-4442 (oral argument held on December 6, 2023); United States v. Tyrell Watts, W.D. NC Case No. 3:23-cr-71 (suppression pleading filed December 13, 2023), United States v. Terry, Fourth Circuit No. 23-4134 (reply brief filed December 14, 2023); United States v. Paul Valdez, W.D. NC Case No. 1:23-ct-77 (pretrial motions due January 12, 2024); and United States v. McManus, Fourth Circuit No. 23-4278 (reply brief due January 18, 2024). Undersigned counsel will also be on preplanned leave and out of the office the last week of December 2023. For these reasons, counsel respectfully requests that an order be entered extending the time to petition for certiorari up to and including February 7, 2024. December 20, 2023 Respectfully submitted, John G. Baker FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA s/Melissa S. Baldwin Melissa S. Baldwin Assistant Federal Public Defender One Page Avenue, Suite 210 Asheville, NC 28801 (828) 232-9992 Counsel for Petitioner Exhibit 1 United States Vv. Curry, 2023 WL 5842300 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-4457 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff — Appellee, V. DEONTE MARQUES CURRY, Defendant — Appellant. No. 21-4713 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff — Appellee, V. DEONTE MARQUES CURRY, Defendant — Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. Argued: May 5, 2023 Decided: September 11, 2023 Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and Henry E. HUDSON, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Melissa Susanne Baldwin, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julia Kay Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North C