729 Fed.Appx. 799 (11th Cir. 2018), 17-14857, United States v. Mayer
|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. Attorneys 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|
DO NOT PUBLISH.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. Attorneys Office, Tampa, FL, Plaintiff-Appellee
Stephen Mayer, Pro Se
Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Stephen Mayer, proceeding pro se, appeals the district courts 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 Reidels 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 readingFREE SIGN UP