United States v. Russell Frauendorfer, No. 10-2362 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - criminal law. District court did not err in denying defendant's Rule 36 motion to correct a clerical error as the amount of restitution imposed in the case was intended by the court and was not the product of a clerical error or oversight.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2362 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Russell J. Frauendorfer, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: October 26, 2010 Filed: November 5, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Russell Frauendorfer appeals the district court s1 denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion to correct a clerical error in the judgment imposing a prison term and restitution in the amount of $4,712. Rule 36 states that 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. We hold that the amount of restitution imposed was intended by the district court and not the product of a clerical error or an error arising from oversight or omission. The oral 1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. pronouncement of the amount of restitution did not differ from either the written judgment, the criminal complaint, or the presentence report. See United States v. Tramp, 30 F.3d 1035, 1037 (8th Cir. 1994) ( Rule 36 does not authorize a district court to modify a sentence at any time. ). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B; and we deny Frauendorfer s motion to supplement the record, see Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th Cir. 1993). ______________________________ -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.
