1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAMARI WILLIAM SINGLETON,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cr-00518-BLF-1 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO CORRECT AND 

CLARIFY SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 

RULE 35(a); AND SUA SPONTE

CORRECTING CLERICAL ERROR IN 

AMENDED JUDGMENT

[Re: ECF 199]

Defendant Damari William Singleton (“Singleton”) has filed a Motion to Correct and 

Clarify Sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). See Mot., ECF 199. At 

the Court’s request, both Probation and the Government have responded to the motion. See Gov’t

Resp., ECF 202; Prob. Resp., ECF 201. Singleton has filed a reply. See Reply, ECF 203.

For the reasons discussed below, Singleton’s Rule 35(a) motion DENIED. However, the 

Court will SUA SPONTE correct a clerical error in the Amended Judgment filed on October 3, 

2023, to reflect that defense counsel was appointed rather than retained.

 I. BACKGROUND

In January 2019, Defendant Damari William Singleton (“Singleton”) pled guilty to one 

count of sex trafficking of children, and in September 2019 he was sentenced to a 210-month term 

of imprisonment and a 7-year term of supervised release. Judgment was entered on September 16, 

2019. See Judgment, ECF 104. Thereafter, the Court granted in part and denied in part 

Singleton’s motion to Vacate and Correct Conviction and Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

See Order, ECF 182. On September 26, 2023, the Court re-sentenced Singleton to a 168-month 

Case 5:16-cr-00518-BLF Document 204 Filed 10/23/23 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

term of imprisonment and a 7-year term of supervised release. See Crim. Minutes, ECF 196. An 

Amended Judgment was entered on October 3, 2023. See Am’d Judgment, ECF 198.

On October 6, 2023, Singleton filed the present Rule 35(a) motion to correct and clarify his 

sentence.

 II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Rule 35(a) provides that, “Within 14 days after sentencing, the court may correct a 

sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). 

“The authority to correct a sentence under this subdivision is intended to be very narrow and to 

extend only to those cases in which an obvious error or mistake has occurred in the sentence, that 

is, errors which would almost certainly result in a remand of the case to the trial court for further 

action[.]” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35, Advisory Committee Note to the 1991 Amendment.

1

 “‘Every 

relevant authority agrees that the scope of ‘clear error’ correctable under Rule 35(a) is extremely 

narrow. . . . [A]ll essentially agree that ‘clear error’ under the Rule requires some reversible error 

at . . . sentencing . . . .’” United States v. Romano, No. 2:15-CR-00190-GEB, 2018 WL 10151929, 

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2018) (quoting United States v. Fields, 552 F.3d 401, 404 (4th Cir. 

2009)). “‘An error must be ‘acknowledged and obvious’ rather than ‘arguable’ in order to 

constitute clear error for purposes of Rule 35(a).’” United States v. Randle, No. 3:10-CR-00005-

BR, 2018 WL 1508869, at *4 (D. Or. Mar. 27, 2018) (quoting United States v. Gilbert, No. 16-

17680, 2017 WL 6728518, at *3 (11th Cir. Dec. 29, 2017)).

B. Analysis

Singleton requests two changes to the Amended Judgment, neither of which involves a

sentencing error falling within the scope of Rule 35(a). The requests are addressed in turn.

(1) Request to Correct Defense Counsel’s Designation

First, Singleton points out that the Amended Judgment identifies his attorney, Steven 

Gruel, as “Retained” rather than “Appointed.” Singleton asserts that although Mr. Gruel was 

1 The Advisory Committee Note is directed to Rule 35(c), as adopted in 1991; the 2002 

Amendments moved Rule 35(c) to its current place as Rule 35(a).

Case 5:16-cr-00518-BLF Document 204 Filed 10/23/23 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

retained to litigate his § 2255 motion, the Court thereafter appointed Mr. Gruel to handle his resentencing pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”). Singleton asks that under these 

circumstances, the Amended Judgment be corrected to change Mr. Gruel’s designation from 

“Retained” to “Appointed.” 

The asserted error in the Amended Judgment regarding Mr. Gruel’s designation has 

nothing to do with the sentence imposed by the Court. Singleton has not identified any impact 

that this asserted error had on his sentencing. Accordingly, the Rule 35(a) motion is DENIED 

with respect to the requested correction of Mr. Gruel’s designation.

However, correction of this clerical error falls squarely within the Court’s sua sponte

authority under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. Rule 36 provides that, “After giving any 

notice it considers appropriate, the 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 (emphasis added). Both the Government and Probation have 

indicated in their responses to Singleton’s Rule 35(a) motion that they have no objection to 

correction of the Amended Judgment to change Mr. Gruel’s designation from “Retained” to 

“Appointed.” The Court will sua sponte correct the Amended Judgment to reflect that Mr. Gruel 

was “Appointed” rather than “Retained.” The Court HEREBY ORDERS Probation to prepare the 

corrected Amended Judgment for the Court’s signature.

(2) Request to Clarify that Federal Sentence is Concurrent

Next, Singleton requests that the Amended Judgment be clarified to reflect that his federal 

sentence is to run concurrently with any portion of his state sentences that were not completed as 

of the date he was taken into federal custody, December 16, 2016. Singleton acknowledges that 

he had already served the entirety of his state sentences by the time the Court re-sentenced him on 

September 26, 2023. He also acknowledges that at his sentencing hearing, the Court granted his 

request that the PSR be amended to clarify that he had been in continuous federal custody since 

December 16, 2016. The Court observes that paragraph 4 of the Second Amended Presentence 

Report, which was filed after the sentencing hearing at the Court’s direction, does reflect that

“[t]he defendant has remained in continuous federal custody throughout these proceedings” since 

Case 5:16-cr-00518-BLF Document 204 Filed 10/23/23 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

December 16, 2016. See Second Am’d PSR ¶ 4, ECF 197. 

Singleton expresses concern that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) nonetheless may not 

calculate his release date correctly. Specifically, Singleton asserts that “notwithstanding the clear 

language in the above paragraph 4, it appears that the BOP sentence computation unit may not 

follow the ‘continuous federal custody’ language.” Mot. at 3 (italics in original). He asks that the 

following language be inserted into the Amended Judgment “to clear up any confusion”: “The 

federal sentence of 168 months in custody runs partially concurrent (that is, since December 16, 

2016) with any remaining imposed state sentences as described in the 2nd Amended PSR 

paragraphs 59 and 61.” Mot. at 4. 

Singleton’s speculation that the BOP may not correctly calculate his release date, and his 

desire to forestall any confusion on the part of BOP, does not provide an adequate basis for relief 

under Rule 35(a). Singleton does not identify any “arithmetical, technical, or other clear error” in 

the sentence imposed by the Court. Accordingly, the Rule 35(a) motion is DENIED with respect 

to Singleton’s request to insert the proposed language ordering a concurrent federal sentence.

ORDER

(1) Defendant Singleton’s Motion to Correct and Clarify Sentence pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) is DENIED.

(2) The Court sua sponte corrects the Amended Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 36 to reflect that defense counsel, Mr. Gruel, was “Appointed”

rather than “Retained.” The Court HEREBY ORDERS Probation to prepare a 

corrected Amended Judgment designating defense counsel as “Appointed” rather 

than “Retained.”

(3) This order terminates ECF 199.

Dated: October 23, 2023

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cr-00518-BLF Document 204 Filed 10/23/23 Page 4 of 4