context: Rather, it corrected his sentenced based upon the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law as it existed at the time of his offense, and so the Ex Post Facto Clause is not implicated. Likewise, because the court was merely correcting his sentence to restore the term of supervised release it had initially imposed under the applicable version of 21 U.S.C. SS 841(b), he had no right to be present when the court did so.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 101 F.3d 527, 528
citation_a.parenthetical: defendant has no right to be present for nondiscretionary correction of sentence
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Parker, 101 F.3d 527, 528 (7th Cir.1996) (defendant has no right to be present for nondiscretionary correction of sentence); see also United States v. De Los Santos Himitola, 924 F.2d 380, 382-83 (1st Cir.1991) (defendant who committed drug crime before effective date of sentencing reforms had no right to be present when district court restored term of supervised release originally imposed but changed on remand to special parole).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 924 F.2d 380, 382-83
citation_b.parenthetical: defendant who committed drug crime before effective date of sentencing reforms had no right to be present when district court restored term of supervised release originally imposed but changed on remand to special parole
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Parker, 101 F.3d 527, 528 (7th Cir.1996) (defendant has no right to be present for nondiscretionary correction of sentence); see also United States v. De Los Santos Himitola, 924 F.2d 380, 382-83 (1st Cir.1991) (defendant who committed drug crime before effective date of sentencing reforms had no right to be present when district court restored term of supervised release originally imposed but changed on remand to special parole).