Case ID: f-appx_257/html/0480-01.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 v. Clinton BUSH, Appellant.
    No. 07-1974.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Nov. 21, 2007.
    Opinion filed Dec. 12, 2007.
    Clinton Bush, Pine Knot, KY, pro se.
    Before AMBRO, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In December 1998, Clinton Bush pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a former convicted felon. The District Court sentenced him to 180 months in prison. Bush did not appeal. He did seek relief through 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but his efforts were unavailing.

In March 2007, Bush filed a “motion for court to correct judgment and commitment order.” Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Bush requested that the District Court correct the judgment order to reflect the reason why he received 180 months’ imprisonment instead of 120 months’ imprisonment. In his motion, Bush admits that he was sentenced to a term of 180 months. The District Court denied Bush’s motion, noting that Bush was subject to a term of imprisonment not less than 180 months under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Bush appeals.

We will summarily affirm the District Court’s order because no substantial issue is presented on appeal. L.A.R. 27.4; I. O.P. 10.6. A court may correct a clerical error in a judgment or order at any time. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. A clerical error involves an inaccurate recording of a court’s statements or actions. See United States v. Bennett, 423 F.3d 271, 277-78 (3d Cir.2005) (also emphasizing that “a court’s authority under Rule 36 is limited to the correction of clerical errors” only). Bush expressed a wish for a fuller explanation of his sentence on the judgment page, but he did not complain of a clerical error. His motion, like the order of judgment, describes his sentence as 180 months’ imprisonment. He did not identify any inaccuracy for the District Court to correct. Accordingly, the District Court properly denied his motion.