Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0175-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Lee WILLIAMS, II, also known as James Lee Williams, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-10028 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed May 31, 2017
    James Lee Williams, II, Pro Se
    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 Pre-sentence Report (“PSR”) Addendum that was used by the district court in determining his sentence. Williams is serving a 120-month sentence for wire fraud.

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. Ceim. 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.