U.S. v. STARKS, CR 412-119. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20160824a63
Visitors: 21
Filed: Aug. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2016
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . In the captioned criminal matter, Defendant Charles Starks has filed a motion to correct his Judgment and Commitment Order. Citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, Starks argues that he was improperly sentenced in excess of the statutory maximum. Rule 36 allows a court to correct "a clerical error" in a judgment. A clerical error, however, is a "minor uncontroversial error[]." United States v. Portillo , 363 F.3d 1161 , 1164 (11 th Cir. 200
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . In the captioned criminal matter, Defendant Charles Starks has filed a motion to correct his Judgment and Commitment Order. Citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, Starks argues that he was improperly sentenced in excess of the statutory maximum. Rule 36 allows a court to correct "a clerical error" in a judgment. A clerical error, however, is a "minor uncontroversial error[]." United States v. Portillo , 363 F.3d 1161 , 1164 (11 th Cir. 2004..
More
ORDER
J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.
In the captioned criminal matter, Defendant Charles Starks has filed a motion to correct his Judgment and Commitment Order. Citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, Starks argues that he was improperly sentenced in excess of the statutory maximum.
Rule 36 allows a court to correct "a clerical error" in a judgment. A clerical error, however, is a "minor uncontroversial error[]." United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004). The rule may not be used "to make a substantive alteration to a criminal sentence." United States v. Pease, 331 F.3d 809, 816 (11th Cir. 2003). Notwithstanding his insistence to the contrary, Starks is asking the Court to make a substantive change to his sentence. He essentially challenges the legality of his sentence, which must be done through a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 Otherwise, a district court cannot modify a sentence once it has been imposed except under three very limited circumstances, none of which apply here. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
Upon the foregoing, this Court is simply unable to consider the merits of Starks's claim under the present posture of the case. Accordingly, his motion to correct judgment (doc. 35) is DENIED.
ORDER ENTERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court notes that Starks recently filed a § 2255 motion although it does not appear that the present claim is made therein. In any event, because he has already filed a § 2255 motion, this Court is unable to construe his present motion as a § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255, 2244(b)(3) (governing second or successive § 2255 motions).
Source: Leagle
