Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10971/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10971-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Salazar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10971

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTHONY SALAZAR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-113-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Salazar, federal prisoner # 33813-177, pleaded guilty to 

possession with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing 

methamphetamine. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal and the denial of 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Salazar moved to correct a purported clerical error 

in his presentence report (PSR) and the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 36. He asserted that the PSR erred by assessing criminal 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 4, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10971 Document: 00512926529 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2015
No. 14-10971

history points on two prior convictions, which he claimed were related offenses. 

The district court denied the Rule 36 motion, stating that “[t]he time to object 

to the PSR and appeal the judgment in this case has long since passed.” The 

district court also denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, 

certifying that the appeal would be frivolous and not taken in good faith. 

Salazar now seeks leave from this court to proceed IFP on appeal.

Rule 36 provides that the district 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. Salazar is 

correct that he may file a Rule 36 motion to correct a clerical error in the PSR, 

even at this late date. See United States v. Mackay, 757 F.3d 195 (5th Cir. 

2014). However, a clerical error occurs when the court intends to do one thing 

but through clerical mistake or oversight does another. United States v. 

Buendia-Rangel, 553 F.3d 378, 379 (5th Cir. 2008). Because the purported 

errors identified by Salazar are not clerical errors, but involve legal and factual 

challenges to his sentence, he has not shown that he was entitled to relief 

under Rule 36. See id.

Salazar’s appeal does not present any nonfrivolous issue, and he has not 

shown that it is taken in good faith. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 

(5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, 

and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 

202 (5th Cir. 1997); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Salazar is WARNED that filing repetitive or frivolous pleadings in this 

court could result in the imposition of sanctions. These sanctions may include 

dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings 

in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

2

Case: 14-10971 Document: 00512926529 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2015