FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT FEB RUARY 8, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1051 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNos . 05 -8 06 77 -CV-KLR & 0 4- 08 00 7- CR-KLR FREDERIC K JOHNSON,
Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (F eb ru ar y 8, 200 7) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

T he G ove rn m en t a

ppe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt' s or de r va catin g de fe ndant Fr ed er ic k Jo hnso n’ s or igi na l 18 8- m onth se nte nc e an d im posi ng the a lte rn at ive 1 2 0
- mo n th s e n t e n c e an n o u n c e da tth e s e n t e n c i n g h e ar i n g . We a f f i rm. John son ple d gu ilty

to one c ount

of pos se ssi on w iththe int en t t o di str ibu te at least five gram s of cra ck cocaine, in viol ation of 21 U.S .C. § 841. The district court sentenced John son to 188 m onth s’ im prisonm ent under the then-m andatory fe de ra l S en te nc ing G uid el ine s. T he c ourt, aw ar e that United States v. B ooker wa s pendin g before the Suprem e Court, also annou nced an alternative sentence ( as wa s its custo m ) of 120 m onth s’ im prisonm ent in the event the Sentencing Guidelines
w er e not m an da tor

y . T he G ove rn m en t di d no t r ai se any obj ec tio ns t o th e alternative sentence. Johns on’s j udgm ent and com m itm ent order (J&C order) refle cted only

the 188-m onth sentence. A ft er the S upr em e Co urt i ssu ed U nited Sta tes v . B ook

er , 125 S
. Ct
. 738 (2005), John son m ove d th e dis tr ic t c ourt t o va cate the or igi na l se nte nc e an d im pose the a lte rn at ive se nte nc e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d Jo hnso n’ s m oti on, re ly ing on F ed er al Ru le of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e 36. Ru le 36 p ro vid es that “ [a ] ft er giv ing any

not ic e it co nsi de rs appr opr iate , the
co urt m ay a t any ti m e co rr ec t a

c le ri ca l e rr or

in a j udgm en t, or de r, or

oth er part of the record, or corr ect an er ror in the rec ord arising from oversight o r om issio n.”3

Fe d. R. Cr im
. P
. 36. R

ule 36 c annot

be use d to m ak e subs tanti ve a lte ratio ns t o a se nt en ce. U

nited Sta tes v . P ea se , 33 1 F .3d80 9, 8 16 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Howev er, a district court m ay

use Rule 36 at any

tim e to corre ct “ clerica l” err ors in the written jud gm en t, fo r ex am

pl e, to en su re t ha t t he jud gm en t co nf orm s t o t he ora l s en te nc e. U nited Sta tes v . P ort illo , 363 F. 3d 11 61, 1164-65 (11th Cir. 2004) (“ Where a sentence that is pronou nced orally and unam

bigu ouslyconflicts with the w ritten order of j udgm ent, the ora l pronou ncem ent controls.”). U nde r the uni que f

ac ts o f the ins tant c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in
re ly ing on R

ule 36 t o im

pose the a lte rn at ive 120 -m onth se nte nc e. A t se nte nc ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar ly

announc ed

an a lte rn at ive se nte nc e to whic h th e G ove rn m en t r ai se d no obj ec tio n. Johnson ’ s J& C o rd er c ont ai ne d ac le ri ca l e rr or insofar as it did notref

lect the 120-m onth alternative sentence. T he district court pr ope rl y r el ie d onRu le 36 t o c or

re ct the c le ri ca l e rr or

and i m pose the a lte rn at ive sentence afte r B ook

er wa s i s s u ed . Ac co rd i n g l y, we a ff i rm th e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s im posi tio n of

the a lte rn at ive se nte nc e of 120 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. AFFIRMED.