USA v. Julius Stevens, No. 12-12274 (11th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-12274 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-12274 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:99-cr-00003-WPD-14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JULIUS STEVENS, a.k.a. Judog, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (December 11, 2012) Before HULL, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 12-12274 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 2 of 2 Julius Stevens appeals the denial of his pro se Rule 36 motion to correct his presentence investigation report (PSI). Stevens argues that because a prior conviction for Possession of Cannabis listed in the criminal history section of his PSI was classified as a felony rather than a misdemeanor, he was incorrectly considered a career offender by the district court when it originally sentenced him. We review legal issues presented in a Rule 36 motion to correct a judgment de novo. United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004). Rule 36 allows a court to correct at any time 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. Rule 36 does not allow for a substantive correction or alteration to a criminal sentence. Portillo, 363 F.3d at 1164. The district court correctly denied the Rule 36 motion. Even assuming the district court originally considered the Possession of Cannabis charge to be a felony, such a correction would not be clerical in nature. Rather, such a correction would result in a substantive alteration to a criminal sentence, particularly if it would change Stevens career offender status. Accordingly, Rule 36 was not the correct basis for Stevens requested relief, and we affirm. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.