[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-17410

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:10-cr-00070-RH-CAS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHANE JONES, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(August 21, 2017)

Before HULL, WILSON, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Shane Jones, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 

motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct a clerical error in 

Case: 16-17410 Date Filed: 08/21/2017 Page: 1 of 4 
2

the presentence investigation report (“PSR”) and the district court’s judgment. 

After careful review, we affirm.

I.

In 2011, Jones pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii). Although the indictment alleged that 

Jones’s offense involved “five (5) grams or more” of cocaine base, Jones’s plea 

agreement specified that “for purposes of this plea and as it impacts the mandatory 

minimum sentence of imprisonment pursuant to Section 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), [Jones’s 

offense] involved an amount of cocaine base in excess of twenty-eight (28) 

grams.”1

 The PSR listed 33.6 grams of cocaine base as the amount that was found 

in Jones’s possession. At sentencing, Jones told the district court he accepted the 

figure of 33.6 grams. He acknowledged that because he possessed more than 28 

grams of cocaine base, he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 10-years 

imprisonment. Jones asked the district court to impose the mandatory minimum as 

his sentence, and the district court did. It then entered the judgment in Jones’s 

case. The judgment stated that Jones was convicted of possession with intent to 

distribute “28 [g]rams or [m]ore” of cocaine base. 

 1 Section 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), as amended by the Fair Sentencing Act, requires 28 grams or 

more of cocaine base to trigger the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence that applies when the 

defendant has a prior felony drug conviction. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii); United States v. 

Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377 n.3 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).

Case: 16-17410 Date Filed: 08/21/2017 Page: 2 of 4 
3

Jones appealed his sentence. See United States v. Jones, 491 F. App’x 160 

(11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (unpublished). He argued that the amount of cocaine 

base necessary to support the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence was “neither 

found by the district court nor admitted by him.” Id. at 161. We rejected this 

argument, explaining that Jones accepted the finding of 33.6 grams at sentencing. 

Id. at 161–62.

In November 2016, Jones filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 36 to correct a clerical error in the PSR and the judgment. He argued 

that the discrepancy between the amount of cocaine base alleged in the indictment 

(five grams or more) and the amount stated in the PSR and the judgment (28 grams 

or more) was a “clerical error” that should be corrected under Rule 36. The district 

court denied Jones’s motion, and Jones timely appealed. 

II.

We review de novo the district court’s application of Rule 36. United States 

v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Under that rule,

“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. The district court denied Jones’s Rule 36 motion 

because the drug quantity he sought to “correct” was not “clerical” in nature, but 

rather was a “substantive decision on the merits.” We affirm the district court. 

Case: 16-17410 Date Filed: 08/21/2017 Page: 3 of 4 
4

In order to fall within the scope of Rule 36, the requested change must be 

“clerical” or it must correct an error that resulted from “oversight or omission.” Id. 

The change Jones seeks is neither. It is not clerical because changing the quantity 

of cocaine base involved in his offense is not “minor [or] mechanical in nature.” 

See Portillo, 363 F.3d at 1165. To the contrary, the quantity of cocaine base listed 

in the judgment and PSR triggered Jones’s mandatory minimum sentence.

Reducing that quantity would therefore effect a “substantive alteration to [his] 

criminal sentence,” and Rule 36 cannot be used for that purpose. Id. at 1164 

(quotation omitted). Neither did the amount of cocaine base listed in the judgment 

and PSR arise from “oversight or omission.” See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. The record 

makes clear that the district court and the parties intended for Jones to be sentenced 

on the basis of 33.6 grams of cocaine base. 

Because the alleged errors that Jones seeks to have corrected are beyond the 

scope of Rule 36, the district court was right to deny his motion. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-17410 Date Filed: 08/21/2017 Page: 4 of 4