USA v. Shane Jone

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Shane Jones. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-17410

Date Filed: 08/21/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17410
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:10-cr-00070-RH-CAS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHANE JONES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(August 21, 2017)
Before HULL, WILSON, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Shane Jones, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct a clerical error in

Case: 16-17410

Date Filed: 08/21/2017

Page: 2 of 4

the presentence investigation report (“PSR”) and the district court’s judgment.
After careful review, we affirm.
I.
In 2011, Jones pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii). Although the indictment alleged that
Jones’s offense involved “five (5) grams or more” of cocaine base, Jones’s plea
agreement specified that “for purposes of this plea and as it impacts the mandatory
minimum sentence of imprisonment pursuant to Section 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), [Jones’s
offense] involved an amount of cocaine base in excess of twenty-eight (28)
grams.” 1 The PSR listed 33.6 grams of cocaine base as the amount that was found
in Jones’s possession. At sentencing, Jones told the district court he accepted the
figure of 33.6 grams. He acknowledged that because he possessed more than 28
grams of cocaine base, he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 10-years
imprisonment. Jones asked the district court to impose the mandatory minimum as
his sentence, and the district court did. It then entered the judgment in Jones’s
case. The judgment stated that Jones was convicted of possession with intent to
distribute “28 [g]rams or [m]ore” of cocaine base.

1

Section 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), as amended by the Fair Sentencing Act, requires 28 grams or
more of cocaine base to trigger the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence that applies when the
defendant has a prior felony drug conviction. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii); United States v.
Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377 n.3 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).
2

Case: 16-17410

Date Filed: 08/21/2017

Page: 3 of 4

Jones appealed his sentence. See United States v. Jones, 491 F. App’x 160
(11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (unpublished). He argued that the amount of cocaine
base necessary to support the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence was “neither
found by the district court nor admitted by him.” Id. at 161. We rejected this
argument, explaining that Jones accepted the finding of 33.6 grams at sentencing.
Id. at 161–62.
In November 2016, Jones filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 36 to correct a clerical error in the PSR and the judgment. He argued
that the discrepancy between the amount of cocaine base alleged in the indictment
(five grams or more) and the amount stated in the PSR and the judgment (28 grams
or more) was a “clerical error” that should be corrected under Rule 36. The district
court denied Jones’s motion, and Jones timely appealed.
II.
We review de novo the district court’s application of Rule 36. United States
v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Under that rule,
“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.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. The district court denied Jones’s Rule 36 motion
because the drug quantity he sought to “correct” was not “clerical” in nature, but
rather was a “substantive decision on the merits.” We affirm the district court.
3

Case: 16-17410

Date Filed: 08/21/2017

Page: 4 of 4

In order to fall within the scope of Rule 36, the requested change must be
“clerical” or it must correct an error that resulted from “oversight or omission.” Id.
The change Jones seeks is neither. It is not clerical because changing the quantity
of cocaine base involved in his offense is not “minor [or] mechanical in nature.”
See Portillo, 363 F.3d at 1165. To the contrary, the quantity of cocaine base listed
in the judgment and PSR triggered Jones’s mandatory minimum sentence.
Reducing that quantity would therefore effect a “substantive alteration to [his]
criminal sentence,” and Rule 36 cannot be used for that purpose. Id. at 1164
(quotation omitted). Neither did the amount of cocaine base listed in the judgment
and PSR arise from “oversight or omission.” See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. The record
makes clear that the district court and the parties intended for Jones to be sentenced
on the basis of 33.6 grams of cocaine base.
Because the alleged errors that Jones seeks to have corrected are beyond the
scope of Rule 36, the district court was right to deny his motion.
AFFIRMED.

4