United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 3, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-11350
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEROME EUREESE BAKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:96-CR-50-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerome Eureese Baker is a federal prisoner (# 28648-077)
serving a 165-month prison term for a 1997 conviction of
possession of approximately 127 grams of crack cocaine with
intent to distribute. He appeals the district court’s sua sponte
denial of his pro se “Motion to Correct Clerical Error,”
purportedly filed pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 36. In the motion,
Baker sought federal sentencing credit for almost five years of
time during which he was apparently confined in a Texas state
prison for a state conviction. He urged the district court to
change the 1997 judgment to reflect that his federal and state
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-11350
-2-
sentences ran concurrently. In this appeal, he continues to
argue that the withholding of such credit violates various
constitutional rights.
Rule 36, FED. R. CRIM. P., permits a district court at any
time to “correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other
part of the record arising from oversight or omission.” Clerical
error exists only when “the court intended one thing but by
merely clerical mistake or oversight did another.” United States
v. Steen, 55 F.3d 1022, 1025-26 (5th Cir. 1995). Rule 36 and its
civil counterpart, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), are not vehicles for
redressing “substantive rights.” See id. at 1026 n.3; Sherrod v.
American Airlines, Inc., 132 F.3d 1112, 1117 (5th Cir. 1998).
Section 2241, 28 U.S.C., is the appropriate vehicle for
obtaining credit for prior custody. United States v. Brown, 753
F.2d 455, 456 (5th Cir. 1985). Contrary to Baker’s assertions,
“[m]ultiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run
consecutively unless the [federal] court orders that the terms
are to run concurrently.” 18 U.S.C. § 3484(a). A federal
prisoner is entitled to credit for a state sentence “only when it
was exclusively the product of such action by federal law-
enforcement officials as to justify treating the state jail as
the practical equivalent of a federal one.” United States v.
Dovalina, 711 F.2d 737, 740 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Baker has no entitlement–-
statutory, constitutional, or otherwise–-to have his federal
prison sentence run concurrently with a state sentence.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.