US v. Danny Blackmon
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:03-cr-00077-BO-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency . Mailed to: Danny L. Blackmon. [17-6941]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
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.”
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
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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?