USA v. White

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Criminal Action No. 22-00226-KD-B
)
SEAN DONNELL WHITE, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
This action is before the Court on the United States’ unopposed motion to correct clerical
error (doc. 78). The United States moves pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 to correct an error in
the judgment (doc. 76). The United States argues that Defendant Sean Donnell White’s
“restitution payments should be made joint and several with his coconspirator” Kristen Williams,
“and the omission of language regarding joint and several liability for restitution in White’s
judgment is an oversight or omission that warrants correction under the rule.” (doc. 78).
Rule 36 provides that “[a]fter giving any notice it considers appropriate, the 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. The Rule may be
used to correct a written judgment to conform to the record or to correct a written judgment to
conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence.
During White’s sentencing, the United States identified Williams as the postal employee
from whom White obtained the postal key to unlock the post boxes. However, the record is
silent as to any request by the United States that White’s restitution be made joint and several
with Williams. When the Court orally pronounced sentence, White was ordered to pay
restitution in the amount of $35,334.10 to TrustMark Bank.
Case 1:22-cr-00226-KD-B Doc# 80 Filed 02/28/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>

The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act requires the District Court to award restitution to
the victims of bank fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii). The Act also provides for joint
liability as follows:
(h) If the court finds that more than 1 defendant has contributed to the loss of a
victim, the court may make each defendant liable for payment of the full amount
of restitution or may apportion liability among the defendants to reflect the level
of contribution to the victim's loss and economic circumstances of each
defendant.
18 U.S.C.A. § 3664(h).
Here, the record shows that the Court did not make a finding that more than one
defendant contributed to TrustMark Bank’s loss. Instead, the record indicates that the United
States failed to request that White’s restitution be joint and several with Williams. The Court’s
oral pronouncement of sentence is not ambiguous. This is not the circumstance where the Court
may correct an error in the record arising from clerical error or its oversight or omission. Cf.
United States v. Hall, 2021 WL 5985356 at *3 (11th Cir. 2021) (“The ‘correction [of Hall's
written judgment] was proper under Rule 36’ because the district court was ‘correct[ing] an error
in the record arising from [its] oversight’ to make Hall's restitution, as her counsel stated at
sentencing, ‘due and payable right away.’”) (citations omitted) (bracketed text in original).
Moreover, Rule 36 may not be used “to make a substantive alteration to a criminal sentence.”
United States v. Mayer, 729 Fed. Appx. 799, 801 (11th Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of February 2025.
s / Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:22-cr-00226-KD-B Doc# 80 Filed 02/28/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>