US v. Walker

Filing

OPINION issued by Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge; Michael Boudin, Appellate Judge and Rogeriee Thompson, Appellate Judge. Per Curiam. Unpublished. [11-2478]

Case: 11-2478

Document: 00116453333

Page: 1

Date Filed: 11/05/2012

Entry ID: 5688203

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 11-2478
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
JAMES RAYMOND WALKER, JR.,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]

Before
Torruella, Boudin and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.

James Raymond Walker, Jr., on brief pro se.
Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Thomas E.
Delahanty II, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

November 5, 2012

Case: 11-2478

Document: 00116453333

Per Curiam.

Page: 2

Date Filed: 11/05/2012

Entry ID: 5688203

We have reviewed the record and the

parties’ submissions, and we affirm.

The appellant, James

Raymond Walker (“Walker”), challenges the district court’s
denial of his motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

Rule 36

“applies to straightforward clerical and technical errors; it
is not meant to provide an opening for litigation over the
merits and is therefore ‘generally inapplicable to judicial
errors and omissions.’” United States v. Ranney, 298 F.3d 74,
81 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Fahm, 13 F.3d 447,
454 n. 8 (1st Cir. 1994) (emphasis in original)).
clearly is alleging a judicial error.

Walker

In his brief, he

challenges the sentencing court’s refusal to direct the Bureau
of Prisons to award him credit for time he spent serving a
state sentence for a probation violation.

He contends that

after this court vacated his original sentence (which did
include such a directive to the Bureau of Prisons) and remanded
the matter for a re-calculation of the guideline sentence
range, the district court did not have the authority to alter
its original sentence in any way other.
should

have

been

made

in

a

direct

But this argument

appeal

to

this

following issuance of the amended Judgment in 2001.

court
Having

failed to follow that procedural route, Walker cannot invoke
Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 a full decade later to correct any alleged
error in the district court’s amended Judgment.

2

Case: 11-2478

Document: 00116453333

Affirmed.

Page: 3

Date Filed: 11/05/2012

See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

3

Entry ID: 5688203