UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

v. 

BRIAN EDWARD RUHL, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

No. 14-5023 

(D.C. No. 4:12-CR-00063-CVE-1) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Bryan Edward Ruhl pled guilty to child pornography charges 

pursuant to a written plea agreement with prosecutors in July 2012. In February 

2014, while serving his sentence, Mr. Ruhl filed a motion for correction of clerical 

mistakes under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 to strike three of the “Special Sex Offender 

 *

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

May 8, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-5023 Document: 01019428253 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Page: 1 
-2- 

Conditions” contained in his plea agreement. The district court denied the motion 

and Mr. Ruhl brought this appeal. 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 provides an avenue for courts to correct clerical mistakes 

in judgments. However, Mr. Ruhl does not specify any clerical error in his judgment. 

Mr. Ruhl takes issue with the three contested conditions and how they were presented 

to him, but he does not tie his opposition to these conditions to a specific clerical 

error or omission which a Rule 36 motion would allow a court to correct. 

Instead, Mr. Ruhl contests whether he was adequately informed of the terms of 

his sentence prior to it being imposed and whether he had the mental capacity to 

comprehend and accept the sentence without objection. These challenges raise 

constitutional concerns, not concerns about clerical errors, and should have been 

brought either through a direct appeal within fourteen days of the district court’s 

entry of judgment, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), or through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion, which allows collateral attacks upon the legality of a prisoner’s sentence by a 

prisoner currently in custody within one year of the entry of a final judgment. The 

time limit for these challenges has now passed, and Mr. Ruhl cannot circumvent 

established channels simply by recharacterizing a substantive challenge to the 

legality of his sentence as a motion to correct a clerical error. 

We hold each of Mr. Ruhl’s reasons for objecting to the “Special Sex Offender 

Conditions” to be challenges to the legality of his sentence, not attempts to correct a 

clerical omission or oversight contained within it, making his Rule 36 motion an 

improper vehicle for raising these challenges. We therefore AFFIRM the district 

Appellate Case: 14-5023 Document: 01019428253 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Page: 2 
-3- 

court’s decision to deny the motion. We also DENY Mr. Ruhl’s motion for 

appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-5023 Document: 01019428253 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Page: 3