Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-04079/USCOURTS-ca3-14-04079-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Lamar Henderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*AMENDED

ALD-065 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-4079

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ANDRE LAMAR HENDERSON,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 1-11-cr-00122-001)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal as Untimely or Summary

Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

December 18, 2014

Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 5, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

*This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-4079 Document: 003111868280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2015
2

Andre Lamar Henderson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of 

the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denying his 

motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. For the reasons that follow, 

we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

In 2011, Henderson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to submit false tax returns in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286, and filing false tax returns in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 287. The District Court sentenced Henderson to 57 months in prison. Henderson 

challenged his sentence on direct appeal and we affirmed. United States v. Henderson, 

502 F. App’x 194 (3d Cir. 2012) (non-precedential).

On September 2, 2014, Henderson filed a motion pursuant to Rule 36 to correct a 

clerical error in his Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”). Henderson asserted that 

the Probation Officer had failed to include his mental health history in his PSR, that the 

Bureau of Prisons relies on the PSR for programming purposes, and that as a result of this 

omission he has been unable to participate in mental health programs. 

The District Court denied the motion. The District Court stated that it had also 

received letters from Henderson regarding his access to mental health programming, and 

that in response it had contacted the United States Probation Office. The District Court 

was advised that Henderson’s former counsel had forwarded copies of his mental health 

records to his Unit Manager. The District Court noted that it had no power to order the 

Bureau of Prisons to provide treatment, and that Rule 36 does not provide an avenue to 

alter Henderson’s PSR. This appeal followed.

Case: 14-4079 Document: 003111868280 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2015
3

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We have not decided the 

standard of review applicable to the denial of a Rule 36 motion. Other courts of appeals 

have applied different standards. See, e.g., United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 

(9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (applying a clear error standard); United States v. Niemiec,

689 F.2d 688, 692 (7th Cir. 1982) (applying an abuse of discretion standard). We will

not resolve this question here because we would affirm under either standard.

Under Rule 36, a court may “at any time correct a clerical error in the 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. “Errors arising from oversight or omission are 

generally corrected to conform to the intention of the court or parties at the time the error 

was made, which may not be reflected in their recorded statements.” United States v. 

Bennett, 423 F.3d 271, 277 n.4 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). 

Henderson has not shown that the parties intended to include his mental health 

history in the PSR. While Henderson sought a downward variance at sentencing based 

on his history of mental illness, the sentencing transcript reflects that Henderson’s 

counsel did not make any objections to the PSR at sentencing. In short, Henderson has 

not established that there is an error in the record arising from oversight or omission. 

 

1The parties were initially notified that this appeal was subject to possible dismissal 

because the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely filed. We decline to dismiss this 

appeal because the time requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b) are not 

jurisdictional and the Government did not respond to our notice, thereby waiving any 

contention that the appeal is untimely. Virgin Islands v. Martinez, 620 F.3d 321, 327-29 

(3d Cir. 2010).

Case: 14-4079 Document: 003111868280 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/05/2015
4

Accordingly, because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will 

summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.2

 

2Henderson’s motions asserting that the Probation Office committed substantial error by 

not including his mental health history in his PSR are denied.

Case: 14-4079 Document: 003111868280 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/05/2015