USA v. Donaveon Lightbourn

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11729
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-20367-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONAVEON LIGHTBOURN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 19, 2012)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-11729 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 1 of 2

-- 1 of 2 --

Donaveon Lightbourn, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial
of his motion to correct a clerical error, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 36. Lightbourn’s motion raised several substantive claims related to his
conviction, including that he was innocent and that his conviction and sentence
were null and void. Lightbourn did not, however, point to any clerical errors in
any judgment or order.
We review the district court’s application of Rule 36 de novo. United States
v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004). Rule 36 provides that a “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. Rule 36 may not be used to substantively alter a criminal sentence.
Portillo, 363 F.3d at 1164.
Because all of the arguments in Lightbourn’s motion requested substantive
changes to his conviction and sentence, none was properly brought under Rule 36.
See id. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Lightbourn’s motion
to correct.
AFFIRMED.
2
Case: 12-11729 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 2 of 2

-- 2 of 2 --