729 Fed.Appx. 799 (11th Cir. 2018), 17-14857, United States v. Mayer

Docket Nº:17-14857
Citation:729 Fed.Appx. 799
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen MAYER, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Linda Julin McNamara, U.S. Attorney Service— Middle District of Florida, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Plaintiff-Appellee Stephen Mayer, Pro Se
Judge Panel:Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:April 04, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 799

729 Fed.Appx. 799 (11th Cir. 2018)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Stephen MAYER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-14857

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

April 4, 2018

Editorial Note:

DO NOT PUBLISH. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 36-2.)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cr-00190-SCB-AEP-1

Linda Julin McNamara, U.S. Attorney Service— Middle District of Florida, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Plaintiff-Appellee

Stephen Mayer, Pro Se

Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Page 800

Stephen Mayer, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 to correct an error in his judgment. Specifically, Mayer alleges the district court erred by declining to remove the reference to "& 2" from his judgment, which states Mayer was convicted under "18 U.S.C. § [§ ] 1343 & 2." After review, we affirm.1

"[T]he court may 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." Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Before the district court, Mayer asserted the reference to "& 2" in his judgment was a clerical error because "the supers[e]ding indictment does not reference 18 U.S.C. [§ ] 1342 [n]or did the jury instructions include such a finding...." On appeal, he also contends a clerical error is apparent because, at his arraignment, Assistant United States Attorney Amanda Reidel stated the only change made in the superseding indictment was the addition of eight counts of "substantive wire fraud." Mayer cites attorney Reidel’s statement to illustrate that she did not intend to charge him with a violation of § 2. Neither argument is persuasive.

As the record reflects, Mayer was not charged with, or convicted under, 18 U.S.C. § 1342; instead, he was charged with, and convicted of, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.2 "Under 18 U.S.C. § 2, aiding and...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP