Case: 12-12274 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12274
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:99-cr-00003-WPD-14
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JULIUS STEVENS,
a.k.a. Judog,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 11, 2012)
Before HULL, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12274 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 2 of 2
Julius Stevens appeals the denial of his pro se Rule 36 motion to correct his
presentence investigation report (PSI). Stevens argues that because a prior
conviction for “Possession of Cannabis” listed in the criminal history section of
his PSI was classified as a felony rather than a misdemeanor, he was incorrectly
considered a career offender by the district court when it originally sentenced him.
We review legal issues presented in a Rule 36 motion to correct a judgment
de novo. United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004). Rule 36
allows a court to correct at any time “a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other
part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or
omission.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Rule 36 does not allow for a substantive
correction or alteration to a criminal sentence. Portillo, 363 F.3d at 1164.
The district court correctly denied the Rule 36 motion. Even assuming the
district court originally considered the “Possession of Cannabis” charge to be a
felony, such a correction would not be clerical in nature. Rather, such a correction
would result in a substantive alteration to a criminal sentence, particularly if it
would change Stevens’ career offender status. Accordingly, Rule 36 was not the
correct basis for Stevens’ requested relief, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2