Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ronald Lee Miller, who was sentenced in February 2018, submitted a pro se letter asking the court to modify information in paragraph 35 of his Presentence Investigation Report. He maintained that the paragraph incorrectly described a prior conviction and that the error was affecting Bureau of Prisons decisions concerning his classification and eligibility for rehabilitation programs.
The court treated Miller’s letter as a motion. After reviewing the report and confirming the underlying information with the U.S. Probation Office, the court determined that Miller had received a misdemeanor conviction for only one of the four offenses originally charged.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion, concluding that paragraph 35 contained a clerical error that could be corrected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. It distinguished a permissible clerical correction from a substantive, post-sentencing challenge to a presentence report, which a district court generally cannot entertain after the sentencing objection period or use to bypass the BOP’s administrative remedies.
The court ordered the Probation Office to revise paragraph 35 to show a conviction solely for “Carrying a Loaded Firearm: Public Place,” identified as Count 3 of the charging instrument, and to remove Counts 1, 2, and 4. The sentence listed for the offense remained unchanged. The court also directed that the amended pages be transmitted to the BOP and government counsel and made available to Miller under the BOP’s standard procedures.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 36 permits correction of a mechanical or clerical error in a presentence report after sentencing.
- A court may not use Rules 32 or 36 to make substantive changes that should have been raised during sentencing or to circumvent BOP administrative remedies.
- Because the report inaccurately listed charges that did not result in convictions, the error was clerical and the court ordered the record corrected.
Why It Matters
Presentence reports can influence BOP classification and program-eligibility decisions long after sentencing. This ruling shows that a narrowly documented error concerning the offense of conviction may remain correctable when the requested change simply makes the report accurately reflect the underlying record.
The decision also preserves the boundary between correcting the record and reopening sentencing issues: Rule 36 can remedy clerical mistakes, but it does not authorize substantive revisions to a presentence report after sentencing.