Case: 15-11259 Document: 00513727026 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-11259 FILED
c/w No. 16-10103 October 20, 2016
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JAMES LEE WILLIAMS, II, also known as James Lee Williams,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:12-CR-225-1
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
James Lee Williams, II, federal prisoner # 97021-079, appeals the
district court’s denial of his two motions under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 36 to correct the Presentence Report (“PSR”) Addendum that was
used by the district court in determining his sentence. Williams is serving a
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 15-11259 Document: 00513727026 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2016
No. 15-11259 & No. 16-10103
120-month sentence for wire fraud. The appeals from the denial of both
motions are CONSOLIDATED.
In this court, Williams argues the district court erred in denying his Rule
36 motions. He asserts that, at sentencing, the district court erroneously
denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because the court’s decision
was based on inaccurate information regarding Williams’s conduct while
incarcerated. Specifically, Williams contends that paragraph 71 of the PSR
Addendum incorrectly stated that he had two incident reports for lying or
falsifying a statement when he had only one such incident. Additionally, the
PSR Addendum stated he saw the Disciplinary Hearing Officer when he
actually saw the Unit Disciplinary Committee. He also challenges statements
in the same paragraph regarding pending disciplinary proceedings for other
incidents.
In cases where there are no factual disputes, we review a district court’s
denial of a Rule 36 motion de novo. United States v. Mackay, 757 F.3d 195, 197
(5th Cir. 2014). The relief Williams seeks is not just the correction of the record
but resentencing based on a completely recalculated Guidelines range. This is
not the type of error that is correctable under Rule 36. See FED. R. CRIM. P.
36; Mackay, 757 F.3d at 200; see also United States v. Buendia-Rangel, 553
F.3d 378, 379 (5th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.
Williams’s motion for judicial notice and supplemental motion for judicial
notice are DENIED.
2