UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. GONZALO GOMEZ-OLIVAS, a/k/a Joseph Hernandez, a/k/a Christino, a/k/a Bellota, a/k/a Anthony M. Flores, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-8107 (D.C. No. 2:96-CR-00102-ABJ-1) (D. Wyo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before KELLY , McKAY , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Gonzalo Gomez-Olivas was convicted in 1997 of conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with inte nt to distribute, cocaine and marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. Based on a total offens e level of 40 and a criminal history category of IV, the Presentence Investigat ion Report (PSR) calculated a Guidelines range of 360 months to life in prison. The district court adopted these findings and, on September 11, 1997, impos ed a life sentence.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldn’t mate rially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Ci r. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment isn’t binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 12, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Nearly two decades later, Gomez-Olivas filed a mo tion to correct the PSR. Specifically, Gomez-Olivas argued that the PSR should reflect an offense level of 38, rather than an offense level of 40, and a corresponding Guidelines range of 324 to 405 months, rather than a Guidelines range of 360 months to life. In support, GomezOlivas cited Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows a court to “correct a clerical e rror in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in th e record arising from oversight or omission.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. The district court denied the motion in relevant part, reas oning that (1) Rule 36 only allows district courts to correct clerical errors, not substantive ones, and (2) the alleged errors that Gomez-Olivas li sts constitute subs tantive errors. Proceeding pro se 1 on appeal, Gomez-Olivas asse rts this was error. But he doesn’t provide any controlling authority that would suppor t that assertion. On the contrary, we’ve “previously held that [Rule 36] allo ws correction of only nonsubstantive errors.” United States v. Lonjose , 663 F.3d 1292, 1299 n.7 (10th Cir. 2011). More specifically, we’ve explained that “Rule 36 motions apply to clerical errors only and are not the proper vehicl e to challenge the substance of the information in a presentencing report.” United States v. Simon , 36 F. App’x 415, 416 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished); see also United States v. Long , 419 F. App’x 845, 848 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished). Moreover, Gomez- Olivas doesn’t explain why we should treat the errors he alleges as clerical—rather than substantive—in nature.

1 Because Gomez-Olivas proceeds pro se , we liberally construe his filings. Gallagher v. Shelton , 587 F.3d 1063, 1067 ( 10th Cir. 2009). But it’ s not our role to act as his advocate. Id.3 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denyi ng in part Gomez-Olivas’s Rule 36 motion. Finally, we grant Gomez- Olivas’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge