Case: 16-11926 Date Filed: 11/30/2016 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11926
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cr-00025-JES-SPC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HECTOR L. ROMAN BAEZ, JR.,
a.k.a. Tito,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 30, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-11926 Date Filed: 11/30/2016 Page: 2 of 2
Hector Baez Jr. appeals pro se the denial of his motion to correct errors in
his presentence investigation report. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. The district court
ruled that the elimination of criminal history points from a presentence report is
“not a ‘clerical error’ within the meaning of Rule 36.” We affirm.
The district court did not err by denying Baez’s motion. A district court may
use Rule 36 to correct a clerical error in a judgment, Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, but the
correction “may not be used to make a substantive alteration to a criminal
sentence,” United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004). Baez
moved to deduct points that had been assessed for four prior convictions on the
grounds they “did not qualify under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(e)(1)” and “cause[d] [him]
to have an upgrade security classification within the Federal Bureau of Prisons.”
Because a reduction in criminal history points would alter Baez’s sentencing range,
his motion does not request the type of “minor and mechanical” change allowed
under Rule 36. See id. at 1165. Baez cannot raise a substantive challenge to the
calculation of his sentence in a motion to correct a clerical error.
We AFFIRM the denial of Baez’s motion to correct a clerical error.
2