USA v. James Williams, II


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-10028 Affirmed] Judge: WED, Judge: LHS, Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 06/21/2017 [17-10028]

Download PDF
Case: 17-10028 Document: 00514014305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-10028 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 31, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JAMES LEE WILLIAMS, II, also known as James Lee Williams, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-225-1 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Lee Williams, II, federal prisoner # 97021-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 motion to correct the Presentence Report (“PSR”) Addendum that was used by the district court in determining his sentence. Williams is serving a 120-month sentence for wire fraud. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 17-10028 Document: 00514014305 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 No. 17-10028 Williams argues that he was entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 36 because paragraph 71 of the PSR Addendum incorrectly stated that he had two incident reports for lying or falsifying a statement when he had only one such incident. In cases where there are no factual disputes, we review a district court’s denial of a Rule 36 motion de novo. United States v. Mackay, 757 F.3d 195, 197 (5th Cir. 2014). Rule 36 provides that a district court may at any time correct a clerical error in the record arising from oversight or omission. FED. R. CRIM. P. 36. The probation officer acknowledged a mistake in Williams’s PSR. The district court noted that the record is now clear and the Bureau of Prisons is fully apprised of Williams’s background. To the extent that the mistake or oversight is correctable under Rule 36, which we need not decide, the district court is correct that Williams failed to show it is not harmless or that it affects his substantial rights. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

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?