### In the 

# United States Court of A p peals For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ No. 14

- 3570
U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
A NDRE W ILLIAMS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 95 CR 242

— Robert W. Gettleman , Judge

.

____________________
S UBMITTED J ANUARY 26, 2015

— D ECIDED J ANUARY 29, 2015

____________________

Before W OOD , Chief Judge , and P OSNER and E ASTERBROOK , Circuit Judg es

. P ER C URIAM

. Andre Williams’s convictions and sentences (totaling 480 months) were affirmed almost 15 years ago. United States v. Patterson , 215 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2000). He lit igated and lost a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. §2255 but continues to s eek a lower sentence. His most recent request, styled a “Motion to Correct Record”, was filed in the district2 No. 14

- 3570

court last year. This motion asks the district judge to revise the presentence report to show that he is not a career offen der and to resentence h im accordingly. The United States o pposed the motion on the ground that it is a disguised effort to conduct a successive collateral attack without this court’s permission, which §2255(h) requires. The district court d enied the motion for lack of jurisdicti on. Williams contends on appeal that Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 a llows courts to correct clerical errors at any time, but his se ntence is not a clerical error; the judgment accurately carries out the district judge’s decision. Rule 36 permits a district
court to ensure that the record accurately reflects judicial d ecisions but does not authorize a challenge to the substance of those decisions. See United States v. McHugh , 528 F.3d 538 (7th Cir. 2008). Nor does the presentence report contain a clerical error. Wheth er the author of the report accurately understood the nature of one of Williams’s older convictions (which affects whether he is a career offender) is a substa ntive matter. Defendants who disagree with the contents of a PSR must object before or at sentenc ing; only if a timely o bjection is made must a district judge state on the record (if the issue affects the sentence) whether the PSR is correct. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f)(1), (i)(3). Williams raised the issue ind irectly at sentencing but did not ask for a co rrection under Rule 32 and did not pursue the matter on appeal. It is far too late to revisit this subject

. A request for a lower sentence, not authorized by a retr oactive change in the Sentencing Guidelines, is treated as a motion under §2255 if it is wit hin the scope of §2255(a), no matter what caption is on the document. See Melton v. United States , 359 F.3d 855 (7th Cir. 2004). The district court properlyNo. 14

- 3570 3

treated this as a §2255 motion and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. In order to appeal from t he denial of a motion under §2255, Williams needs a certificate of appealability, which he has not sought. His brief likewise does not identify a su bstantial constitutional question, which is required for a ce rti f icate. 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). We do not per ceive such an i ssue. So we decline to issue a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.