Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 11-2478
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
JAMES RAYMOND WALKER, JR.,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Boudin and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.
James Raymond Walker, Jr., on brief pro se.
Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Thomas E.
Delahanty II, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
November 5, 2012
Per Curiam. We have reviewed the record and the parties’
submissions, and we affirm. The appellant, James Raymond Walker
(“Walker”), challenges the district court’s denial of his motion
under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Rule 36 “applies to straightforward
clerical and technical errors; it is not meant to provide an
opening for litigation over the merits and is therefore ‘generally
inapplicable to judicial errors and omissions.’” United States v.
Ranney, 298 F.3d 74, 81 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v.
Fahm, 13 F.3d 447, 454 n. 8 (1st Cir. 1994) (emphasis in
original)). Walker clearly is alleging a judicial error. In his
brief, he challenges the sentencing court’s refusal to direct the
Bureau of Prisons to award him credit for time he spent serving a
state sentence for a probation violation. He contends that after
this court vacated his original sentence (which did include such a
directive to the Bureau of Prisons) and remanded the matter for a
re-calculation of the guideline sentence range, the district court
did not have the authority to alter its original sentence in any
way other. But this argument should have been made in a direct
appeal to this court following issuance of the amended Judgment in
2001. Having failed to follow that procedural route, Walker cannot
invoke Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 a full decade later to correct any
alleged error in the district court’s amended Judgment.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
-2-