US v. Shone Wilkes, No. 10-6165 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6165 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHONE EDWARD WILKES, Defendant - Appellant. No. 10-6166 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHONE EDWARD WILKES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00031-FDW-8) Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 4, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shone Edward Wilkes, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Gretchen C. F. Shappert, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Shone Edward Wilkes seeks to appeal two of the district court s December 22, 2009, text orders: (1) denying his motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 to correct clerical error in the written judgment and (2) his motion asserting his actual innocence . factored . into . his contest[ing] his sentence. The prior district convictions court which denied the first motion noting that the Court finds no clerical error in the written judgment. to clerical errors We note that Rule 36 motions apply only and are not the proper vehicle for challenging the substance of the information in a presentence report ( PSR ). Rather, any challenges to a PSR should be filed within fourteen days of receiving the document. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f). The district court denied relief in the second motion noting the late date of the motion occurring years after his plea, sentencing, and appeal. We note that, to the extent Wilkes seeks to challenge his conviction and sentence, he must first obtain authorization from this court to file a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h). Accordingly, we affirm the court s text orders. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
