Court Opinion

ID: 9890669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 21:01:00.479069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:40.049798
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13938    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 10/13/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13938
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       NORRIS WILLIAMS,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cr-00149-SPC-MRM-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13938         Document: 25-1        Date Filed: 10/13/2023         Page: 2 of 5

       2                         Opinion of the Court                       22-13938

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Norris Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
       court’s denial of his motion to correct clerical errors in his presen-
       tence investigation report (PSI) under Federal Rule of Criminal
       Procedure 36. After careful review, we affirm.
                                     I.      Background
              In 2016, Williams was convicted of four counts for various
       crimes related to the possession and distribution of heroin.1 His
       PSI concluded that Williams qualified for career offender status un-
       der U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on a history of “at least two prior felony
       convictions” involving controlled substances: two Florida convic-
       tions for the sale of cocaine (Case Nos. 99-CF-2982 and 99-CF-2983)
       and one federal conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine and
       cocaine base with intent to distribute (Case No. 2:00-cr-37-FtM-29).
       Additionally, the probation officer assigned a total of four criminal
       history points for the cocaine-related state convictions (Case Nos.
       99-CF-2982, 99-CF-2983, and 99-CF-4465), and three points for the
       federal cocaine conspiracy conviction (Case No. 2:00-cr-37-FtM-
       29).

       1 A jury found Williams guilty of three counts of possessing with intent to dis-

       tribute and distributing a detectable amount of heroin under 21 U.S.C.
       § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and one count of attempting to possess with intent
       to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
       (b)(1)(A)(i), and 846.
USCA11 Case: 22-13938       Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 10/13/2023      Page: 3 of 5

       22-13938                  Opinion of the Court                         3

              Williams and his counsel objected to the PSI’s calculations
       at sentencing, arguing it effectively charges him with the cocaine
       convictions “three different times” and raising a double jeopardy
       claim. The district court found the PSI’s calculations correct and
       rejected the double jeopardy objection. We affirmed his sentence
       on direct appeal and rejected objections to both his career offender
       status and sentence’s substantive reasonableness. United States v.
       Williams, 718 F. App’x 890 (11th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct.
       1709 (2018).
               In 2019, Williams filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion with the
       district court to vacate his sentence and argued, among other
       things, ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to argue miscal-
       culation of his career offender status. Based on both the facts in the
       record and the arguments at sentencing, the district court denied
       the motion as procedurally barred and without merit. In June 2022,
       we denied Williams’ application for a second or successive § 2255
       motion for failure to satisfy the requirements of § 2255(h)(1).
              This leads us to the present matter. In August 2022, Wil-
       liams filed a Rule 36 motion, which argued that his series of prior
       state and federal cocaine convictions 2 should be corrected and
       scored as a single offense for purposes of the 2016 heroin convic-
       tion’s criminal history calculations. The district court denied his
       motion on three relevant grounds: (1) Rule 36 was the improper
       avenue for relief because he sought to “alter substantively his

       2 These convictions include Case Nos. 99-CF-2982, 99-CF-2983, 99-CF-4465,

       and 2:00-cr-37-FtM-29D.
USCA11 Case: 22-13938      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 10/13/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13938

       criminal history score and category” rather than amend a clerical
       error; (2) Williams failed with analogous arguments on both direct
       appeal and collateral relief; and (3) despite the motion’s improper
       posture, the district court correctly calculated the prior cocaine
       convictions as separate offenses in the 2016 PSI. This appeal fol-
       lowed.
                                  II.     Discussion
             We review the district court’s application of Rule 36 de
       novo. United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004).
               Rule 36 states that “the court may at any time correct a cler-
       ical 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 (emphasis added). Although the rule allows the district
       court to correct a clerical error, it does not impart independent ju-
       risdiction to consider the merits of an error that is more than “mi-
       nor and mechanical in nature.” Portillo, 363 F.3d at 1165. In other
       words, the district court must establish that an error is clerical be-
       fore it may consider whether correction is proper. Id. We have
       recognized that “Rule 36 may not be used to make a substantive
       alteration to a criminal sentence,” but rather provides a remedy to
       correct transcription errors, such as where a written judgment un-
       ambiguously conflicts with an oral pronouncement of sentence. Id.
       at 1164–65 (citations omitted).
             Here, the district court properly denied Williams’ Rule 36
       motion because the requested changes to his PSI were substantive,
       not clerical, and thus beyond the scope of Rule 36. Although
USCA11 Case: 22-13938      Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 10/13/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       22-13938               Opinion of the Court                         5

       Williams frames his challenge as pertaining to his security status
       with the Bureau of Prisons, consolidating Williams’ state and fed-
       eral cocaine offenses into a single prior drug conviction would have
       the substantive effect of rescinding Williams’ career offender status
       and significantly altering the relevant U.S.S.G. range. Declassifying
       his status would not be a “minor and mechanical” change, but ra-
       ther “a substantive alteration to [his] criminal sentence.” See id. at
       1164–65. Thus, Williams’ motion is beyond the scope of Rule 36.
              Furthermore, this motion cannot be read as submitted un-
       der either Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 or § 2255 to provide the scope neces-
       sary for review. Rule 32, which contains the procedures for prepa-
       ration of the PSI, cannot alone provide the district court with juris-
       diction to hear a post-judgment collateral attack on a sentence for
       a Rule 32 violation. See United States v. Velez-Rendon, 845 F.2d 304,
       304 (11th Cir. 1988). Section 2255 is also unavailable because Wil-
       liams filed an initial § 2255 motion that the district court denied on
       the merits, and his application for a second or successive § 2255
       motion was denied by this court. Contrary to Williams’ conten-
       tions, both the district court and this court have addressed his crim-
       inal history objections at various stages, including sentencing, di-
       rect appeal, and collateral relief. At each stage his objections were
       denied on the merits. Rule 36 does not provide a vehicle to further
       object to his criminal sentence.
             Accordingly, the district court properly denied Williams’
       Rule 36 motion, and we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.