Case ID: f-appx_497/html/0912-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donaveon LIGHTBOURN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-11729
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 19, 2012.
    Wifredo A. Ferrer, Kathleen Mary Sal-yer, Anne Ruth Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Jason Linder, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donaveon Lightbourn, Lewisburg, PA, pro se.
    Before CARNES, BARKETT and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Donaveon Lightbourn, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to correct a clerical error, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. Lightbourn’s motion raised several substantive claims related to his conviction, including that he was innocent and that his conviction and sentence were null and void. Lightbourn did not, however, point to any clerical errors in any judgment or order.

We review the district court’s application of Rule 36 de novo. United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir.2004). Rule 36 provides that a “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. Rule 36 may not be used to substantively alter a criminal sentence. Portillo, 363 F.3d at 1164.

Because all of the arguments in Lightb-ourn’s motion requested substantive changes to his conviction and sentence, none was properly brought under Rule 36. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Lightbourn’s motion to correct.

AFFIRMED.