[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN TH E UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 15026 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:13

- cr - 00020

- ACC

- KRS

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus LANDER C. MCLOYD, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________ _______________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (June 2, 2014) Before PRYOR, MARTIN , and FAY , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Lander C. McLoyd appeals his conviction for possession with intent to dist ribute cocaine base and marijuana , possession of a firearm in furtheran ce of a

Case: 13-15026 Date Filed: 06/02/2014 Page: 1 of 52 drug

- trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon

. We dismiss in part and remand in part

. I. BACKGROUND In June 2012, the Melbourne, Florida, police received an anonymous complaint about drug activity at McLoyd’s home. After surveillance of his home was futile, a confidential informant (“CI”) was used to make t wo purchases of crack cocaine. The controlled buys were conducted in September 2012. O n October 12, 2012, a search warrant was executed on McLoyd’s residence. Authorities found drugs, firearms, and items related to drug dist ribution in almost
every room . McLoyd was the only person present in the residence at the time the
warrant was ex ecuted ; investigation revealed he was the only person who lived there. In January 2013, a federal grand jury indicted McLoyd for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and marijuana , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(D) (Count 1) ; possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug

- trafficking crime , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and (c)(2) (Count 2) ; and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) ( Count 3). Before trial, McLoyd moved to disclose the identity of the CI involved in his case. He also moved to suppress the drugs, guns, and s tatement obtained during the search of his residence

.

Case: 13-15026 Date Filed: 06/02/2014 Page: 2 of 53 A magistrate judge denied McLoyd’s motion to disclose the CI’s identity. The record does no t show that McLoyd asked the district judge to review the magistrate judge ’s disposition of t his motion. The district judge subsequently denied McLoyd’s motion to suppress. Following a jury trial, McLoyd was convicted on all counts

. His conviction judgment mistakenly states the crimes in Count 1 occurred on October 12, 2013 , instead of October 12, 2012

. The district judge sentenced McLoyd to concurrent terms of 60 months of imprisonment on Counts 1 and 3, and 60 consecutive
mont hs of imprisonment on Count 2, followed by a total of 4 years of supervised release. On appeal, McLoyd argues the denial of his motion to disclose the CI’s identity violated his rights to compulsory process, confrontation, and cross

examination . He raises several arguments in support of this claim and contends our review is de novo. Because of a typographical error on his conviction judgment regarding the date the crimes in Count 1 occurred , McLoyd argues t h e date should be c hang ed from October 12, 2013, to October 12, 2012

.

Case: 13-15026 Date Filed: 06/02/2014 Page: 3 of 54 II. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdic tion
We examine our jurisdiction sua sponte , and we review jurisdictional issues de novo. United States v. Lopez , 562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009). We lack jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge’s order, where a defendant first does not seek review of the order before the district judge

. United States v. Schultz , 565 F.3d 1353, 1359

- 62 (11th Cir. 2009) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a challenge to the magistrate judge ’s denial of a defendant’s motion for self

representation, because the defendant did not appeal the magistrate judge ’s order to the district judge ); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(a) (providing a defendant must serve and file o bjections to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non

- dispositive matter within 14 days, or he waives any right to review); United States v. Renfro , 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the defendant’s challenge to the magistr ate judge ’s denial of a discovery motion, which the defendant did not appeal to the district judge until after his trial). Because th e record contains no indication McLoyd asked the district judge to review the magistrate judge’ s denial of his motion to d isclose the CI’s identity,

w e lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the magistrate judge ’s order. See Fed.
R. Crim. P. 59(a); Schultz , 565 F.3d at 1359

- 62. The parties’ failure to address this issue is irrelevant, because we are obligated to review o ur jurisdiction sua sponte

.

Case: 13-15026 Date Filed: 06/02/2014 Page: 4 of 55 See Lopez , 562 F.3d at 1311. T herefore , we dismiss this portion of McLoyd’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Schultz , 565 F.3d at 1359

- 62.
B. Scrivener’s Error in Conviction Judgment
We may remand with instructions to correct a typographical error in the conviction judgment. See United States v. James , 642 F.3d 1333, 1343 (11th Cir. 2011) (remanding to correct clerical error in judgment regarding statute of convict ion); United States v. Massey , 443 F.3d 814, 822 (11th Cir. 2006) (same). McLoyd’s indictment states the crimes in Count 1 , for which he was tried and convicted , occurred on October 12, 2012. Trial t estimony also substantiated th os e crim es arose out of the search warrant executed at McLoyd’s home on October 12, 2012. Moreover , he was indicted for these crimes in January 2013. McLoyd’s conviction judgment states the crimes in Count 1 occurred on October 12, 2013 , which the government concedes is incorrect. T herefore , we remand for the limited purpose of amending the conviction judgment to state the crimes in Count 1 occurred on October 12, 2012

. See James , 642 F.3d at 1343; Massey , 443 F.3d at 822. DISMISSED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART. Case: 13-15026 Date Filed: 06/02/2014 Page: 5 of 5