2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-23-2014 

# U S A v . C a r l Kni gh t

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t 13-3910

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . C a rl Kni gh t " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 94. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/94

### ALD

- 116 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 13

- 3910

___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CARL ANTHONY KNIGHT,

Appellant

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United Stat es District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 1

- 98

- cr - 00003

- 002 ) District Judge: Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 an d I.O.P. 10.6 January 9, 2014 Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : January 23, 2014 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Carl Anthony Knight was convicted in 1999 fo r conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced to life imprisonment

. See United States v. Knight , No. 99

- 3667, 50 F. App ’ x 565 (3d Cir. 2002). In 2013, he filed a motion to correct a purported

### 2

clerical error in his judgment order pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, which provides that “the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment . . . or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission.” Knight argued that his judgment correctly reflected that he was convict ed for violating 21 U.S.C. § 846, but should also have indicated that he had been convicted of aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. Knight did not contend that this omission had any effect on his conviction or sentence; rather , he argued mer ely that the judgment order should be “factually accurate upon its face.” See U nited States v. Guevremont , 829 F.2d 423 , 425 (3d Cir. 1987) (clerical error “must not be one of judgment or even of misidentification, but merely of recitation, of the sort th at a clerk or amanuensis might commit, mechanical in nature”) (quotation marks omitted). The District Court determined

— and we agree

— that although Knight’s co

defendants may have been charged with aiding and abetting, the sole count for which Knight was convicted was a violation of § 846. Thus, there was no error to correct in Knight’s judgment, and the District Court properly denied his Rule 36 motion. 1 

### Because Knight’s appeal of that denial presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6 ; see also Murray v. Bledsoe , 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

1 

### We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have not established in a precedential opinion the standard in this Circuit for review ing the denial of a Rule 36 motion , but we need not do so today because we would affirm under any available standard.