United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Michelle E. Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff.
Nathan John Mikulak, pro se
MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Nathan John Mikulak's Pro Se Motion to Correct Clerical Error Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 [Docket No. 34], filed January 22, 2014.
Defendant pled guilty to the crime of Count 1 of the indictment charging him with the crime of Armed Career Criminal in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). (See Am. J., Docket No. 33, at 1.) At the time of sentencing in this Court, Defendant was already serving a state court sentence. (See Plea Agreement, Docket No. 28, at 4.) On September 30, 2004, this Court sentenced Defendant to an imprisonment term of 180 months, the statutorily-mandated minimum for the offense, "to be served concurrently with any and all pending sentences." (Am. J. 2.) That term of imprisonment was commenced as of September 30, 2004.
While in prison, Defendant made a request to the Bureau of Prisons, asking that it credit eight months and 23 days toward his federal sentence. (See Def.'s Mot., at 4.) However, the Bureau of Prisons responded that the requested period had already been credited toward his state sentence. (See id.) The Bureau of Prisons explained that, under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)-which allows only for provision of custody credit "that has not been credited against another sentence"-Defendant's request could not be granted.
On January 22, 2014, Defendant brought the current Motion to Correct Clerical Error Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 [Docket No. 34] before the Court. In his motion, Defendant requests that the Court reduce his sentence by approximately nine months because it intended to give him credit for time served.
A. Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 allows a court to "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." Rule 36 specifically addresses clerical errors, or "mere scrivener's mistake[s]." See United States v. Yakle , 463 F.3d 810, 811 (8th Cir. 2006) (denying relief under Rule 36 because there was "no mere scrivener's mistake"). "Rule 36 authorizes a court to correct a clerical error in a judgment at any time.... Rule 36 does not authorize a district court to modify a sentence at any time." United States v. Tramp , 30 F.3d 1035, 1037 (8th Cir. 1994).
Defendant argues that he served eight months and 23 days in state custody before his federal sentence, and he has not been properly credited for that time served. Defendant asserts that it was the intent and understanding of the Court and the parties that he would receive credit for his federal sentence as from January 17, 2004 (as opposed to his federal sentencing date of September 30, 2004). Defendant asks the Court to correct what ...