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—approximately 28 grams—of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine.
The written judgment incorrectly 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.” Marache raised those discrepancies on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that both discrepancies were clerical errors subject to correction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.
The court remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting those errors. It affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 36 permits a district court to correct clerical errors in a criminal judgment.
- The judgment must be corrected to identify Marache’s count of conviction as Count 10, not Count 10S.
- The remand was strictly limited to correcting the written judgment; the judgment was otherwise affirmed.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s treatment of discrepancies between the charging instrument and a written criminal judgment when the mistakes are clerical rather than substantive. A limited Rule 36 remand can correct the record without disturbing the otherwise valid judgment.