ALD-023 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-3601
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JEFFREY RIGGINS,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 2-06-cr-00700-001)
District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sanchez
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 31, 2013
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 21, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Jeffrey Riggins appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion to correct a
clerical error in his criminal judgment. For the reasons below, we will summarily affirm
the District Court’s order.
Riggins was convicted in 2007 of twenty-five counts of possession of cocaine base
with intent to distribute as well as one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He was sentenced to 432 months in prison.
Because Riggins had at least three previous convictions for serious drug offenses or
violent felonies, he was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years in
prison for the § 922(g) conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). On direct appeal, we
affirmed Riggins’s conviction and sentence. United States v. Riggins, 319 F. App’x 180
(3d Cir. 2009).
In July 2013, Riggins filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 to correct a
purported clerical error in his criminal judgment. He argued that the judgment was
inaccurate because it failed to refer to the sentencing enhancement under § 924(e). The
District Court determined that the absence of a reference to § 924(e) was not an error that
required correction. It denied the motion, and Riggins filed a notice of appeal.
Under Rule 36, a District Court may correct a clerical error in a judgment at any
time. The purported error here does not involve a failure to accurately record an action or
2
statement by the District Court. See United States v. Bennett, 423 F.3d 271, 277-78 (3d
Cir. 2005). Riggins has not alleged that the sentence on the criminal judgment does not
reflect the sentence imposed by the District Court at sentencing. Because there was no
clerical error to be corrected, the District Court did not err in denying Riggins’s Rule 36
motion.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by
the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit
I.O.P. 10.6.
3