Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Christopher Anthony Marache pleaded guilty to Count 10 of a second superseding indictment. That count charged him with possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or less—specifically, approximately 28 grams—of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine.
The district court’s written judgment mistakenly identified the count of conviction as “Count 10S.” It also described the offense as involving approximately 28 grams of a “mixture of substance,” rather than a “mixture or substance,” containing a detectable amount of cocaine. Marache raised these discrepancies on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit agreed that the written judgment contained clerical errors. It held that those mistakes warranted correction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, which permits a court to correct clerical errors in a judgment.
The court remanded the case for the limited purpose of correcting the count designation and offense description. It affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects.
Key Takeaways
- A written criminal judgment should accurately identify the count of conviction and the offense charged.
- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 permits correction of clerical errors in a judgment.
- The remand was limited to correcting the two clerical mistakes; the remainder of the judgment was affirmed.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that even minor discrepancies between the charging instrument and the written judgment may justify a limited remand. Correcting those errors under Rule 36 preserves an accurate record without disturbing the otherwise valid judgment.