ALD-038 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1219

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARCEL HARPER, 

a/k/a MIZ,

a/k/a MIKE HARPER,

 Marcel Harper,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 2-05-cr-00170-002)

District Judge: Honorable John R. Padova

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

November 5, 2015

Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed November 10, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Marcel Harper appeals from the District Court’s order denying his motion to 

correct court records, filed pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure, and the order denying his motion for reconsideration of that denial. Because 

the appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s 

orders.1 See LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

Harper is currently serving a term of 424 months’ imprisonment resulting from 

two armed bank robberies. Harper claimed in his Rule 36 motion that both his 

Presentence Investigation Report and his Judgment of Conviction incorrectly stated that 

his convictions for counts 3 and 5 of the Indictment were for violations of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(C), rather than 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Harper asked the District Court to 

correct the record. While Harper insisted that he was not attempting to attack his 

sentence, it appears that he sought to have his consecutive sentence for the second 

weapons charge reduced to 84 months’ imprisonment (the mandatory minimum under 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)), rather than 300 months’ imprisonment (the mandatory minimum under 

§ 924(c)(1)(C) for a second or subsequent § 924(c) offense). 

Rule 36 allows a district court to correct a clerical error in a judgment or other part 

of a criminal record “at any time.” See United States v. Bennett, 423 F.3d 271, 277 (3d 

Cir. 2005). But as the District Court noted, there was no error here. First, Harper’s 

 

1 We have jurisdiction to review both orders. Harper’s motion for reconsideration, filed 

within 28 days of the order denying his Rule 36 motion, tolled the time to appeal that 

order until the motion for reconsideration was decided. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). 

Harper in turn timely appealed the District Court order denying his motion for 

reconsideration. 
3

argument is factually incorrect: both the presentence report and the judgment refer to 

violations of § 924(c), without specifying a further subsection. Second, Harper is legally 

incorrect: as provided by statute, the District Court was required to sentence him to a 

consecutive 300-month sentence for the weapons offense associated with the second 

armed robbery. See United States v. Couch, 291 F.3d 251, 256 (3d Cir. 2002). And 

because Harper’s motion for reconsideration did not demonstrate any basis for granting 

the motion, such as intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or the need to 

correct clear error of law or fact or prevent manifest injustice, the District Court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Lazardis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 

(3d Cir. 2010) (denial of motion for reconsideration reviewed for abuse of discretion).

For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s 

judgment.