United States v. Danny Blackmon , 698 F. App'x 113 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6941
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DANNY L. BLACKMON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:03-cr-00077-BO-1)
    Submitted: September 28, 2017                                     Decided: October 3, 2017
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Danny L. Blackmon, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Danny L. Blackmon appeals from the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 36 motion. Blackmon sought to delete or correct information from his presentence
    report (“PSR”). Because the relief he seeks is not available by way of Rule 36, we affirm.
    Rule 36 provides that “[a]fter giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court
    may at any time correct 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.”           The Advisory
    Committee Notes to Rule 36 point out that Rule 36 is similar to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), which
    provides for the correction of clerical mistakes in civil orders. The Ninth Circuit explained
    the type of clerical mistakes that may be corrected under Rule 60(a) as follows:
    The basic distinction between “clerical mistakes” and mistakes that cannot
    be corrected pursuant to Rule 60(a) is that the former consist of “blunders in
    execution” whereas the latter consist of instances where the court changes its
    mind, either because it made a legal or factual mistake in making its original
    determination, or because on second thought it has decided to exercise its
    discretion in a manner different from the way it was exercised in the original
    determination.
    Blanton v. Anzalone, 
    813 F.2d 1574
    , 1577 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987). Blackmon failed to show
    any clerical errors in the PSR.
    Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6941

Citation Numbers: 698 F. App'x 113

Judges: Wilkinson, Motz, King

Filed Date: 10/3/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2024