Court Opinion

ID: 9917152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 18:01:34.219072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:59.125701
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12317    Document: 15-1     Date Filed: 01/11/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12317
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       CRAIG SIZER,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20715-BB-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12317          Document: 15-1         Date Filed: 01/11/2024           Page: 2 of 4

       2                           Opinion of the Court                        23-12317

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Craig Sizer, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals fol-
       lowing the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal
       Procedure 36 motion to correct an alleged error in his Presentence
       Investigation Report (PSI) and to be resentenced under the cor-
       rected PSI. Sizer asserts the district court erred in denying his mo-
       tion because he requested only the correction of clerical errors, as
       permitted under Rule 36. Rather than responding, the Govern-
       ment has filed a motion for summary affirmance, contending Sizer
       failed to contest the district court’s reason for denying his order,
       namely, its lack of jurisdiction in light of his pending appeal of the
       denial of a prior compassionate release motion, and that, regard-
       less, affirmance was proper, as Rule 36 does not permit the relief
       that Sizer requested. After review, 1 we affirm.
              As an initial matter, it appears the district court initially dis-
       missed Sizer’s Rule 36 motion for lack of jurisdiction, though it
       later clarified, pursuant to a motion for clarification, that it was
       denying his claims on the merits. Assuming, arguendo, that the dis-
       trict court dismissed the Rule 36 motion for lack of jurisdiction

       1 We review questions of the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction de novo,

       even if raised for the first time on appeal. United States v. Gruezo, 66 F.4th 1284,
       1290 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 178 (2023). We also review the district
       court’s application of Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 to correct a clerical error de novo.
       United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004).
USCA11 Case: 23-12317         Document: 15-1        Date Filed: 01/11/2024         Page: 3 of 4

       23-12317                  Opinion of the Court                                3

       instead of on the merits, doing so was error because Sizer’s appeal
       of the denial of his previous compassionate release motion did not
       divest the district court of jurisdiction to adjudicate his Rule 36 mo-
       tion because that portion of the case was not related to his compas-
       sionate release case that was on appeal. See Johnson v. 3M Company,
       55 F.4th 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2022) (holding “an interlocutory ap-
       peal does not completely divest the district court of jurisdiction,”
       and “[t]he district court has authority to proceed forward with por-
       tions of the case not related to the claims on appeal” (quotation
       marks omitted)).
              However, as we may affirm on any ground supported by the
       record, we turn to the merits of Sizer’s claim, and here, the Gov-
       ernment’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law. United
       States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e may
       affirm for any reason supported by the record, even if not relied
       upon by the district court.” (quotation marks omitted)); Groendyke
       Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969) 2 (explain-
       ing summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of one
       of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be
       no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as
       is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous”). Rule 36 allows
       a court “at any time [to] correct a clerical error in a judgment, or-
       der, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record

       2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),

       this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Cir-
       cuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 23-12317      Document: 15-1      Date Filed: 01/11/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-12317

       arising from oversight or omission.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. “Rule 36
       may not be used to make a substantive alteration to a criminal sen-
       tence.” United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004)
       (quotation marks omitted). Clerical errors are “minor and me-
       chanical in nature.” Id. at 1165.
              In his Rule 36 motion, Sizer asserted he was improperly sen-
       tenced due to an error in the PSI’s loss amount calculation. He
       sought to both correct the purported error and to be resentenced
       based on the corrected PSI. Under our precedent, Rule 36 is not a
       proper vessel for seeking substantive alterations to a criminal sen-
       tence. Id. at 1164. Rather, attacks on the validity of a sentence
       must generally be brought under § 2255. See Sawyer v. Holder, 326
       F.3d 1363, 1365 (11th Cir. 2003) (stating collateral attacks on the
       validity of a federal conviction or sentence are typically brought
       under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Accordingly, the relief sought by Sizer
       was unavailable to him under Rule 36.
             Consequently, the Government’s position is clearly correct
       as a matter of law, no substantial question exists as to the outcome
       of the case, and the Government is entitled to summary affir-
       mance. See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. Therefore,
       we GRANT the Government’s motion for summary affirmance
       and AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Sizer’s Rule 36 motion.
              AFFIRMED.