U.S. v. Chrzaszcz, CR-09-01381-002-PHX-JAT. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20180326554
Visitors: 29
Filed: Mar. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to correct clerical error under F.R.C.P. 36. (Doc. 950). The Court has reviewed the motion and it does not actually seek to correct a clerical error. Instead it makes more substantive arguments challenging the judgment. The Court may not construe this motion as one under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003). Accordingly, the Court will treat the motion as it is cap
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to correct clerical error under F.R.C.P. 36. (Doc. 950). The Court has reviewed the motion and it does not actually seek to correct a clerical error. Instead it makes more substantive arguments challenging the judgment. The Court may not construe this motion as one under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003). Accordingly, the Court will treat the motion as it is capt..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to correct clerical error under F.R.C.P. 36. (Doc. 950). The Court has reviewed the motion and it does not actually seek to correct a clerical error. Instead it makes more substantive arguments challenging the judgment.
The Court may not construe this motion as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003). Accordingly, the Court will treat the motion as it is captioned, and deny relief because the motion does not actually seek to correct a mere clerical error. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Correct a Clerical Error under F.R.C.P. Rule 36 (Doc. 950) is denied.
Source: Leagle
