JASON93 / LEGAL TECHSearch the reference
AuthorityCurrent through November 2, 2026View as Markdown

Legal review · Scope & methodology

This record is not a citator check. Confirm later history and treatment before relying on it.

authority type
case
jurisdiction
federal_eleventh_circuit
publication status
published_precedential_opinion
precedential status
binding_in_ca11
decision or issuance date
2004-03-26
subsequent history
Source read 2026-10-30 for the legal-review revisions.
negative treatment status
Official or public sources checked through 2026-10-30; comprehensive commercial citator not run.
material limitations
Pinpoints checked against CourtListener star pagination. Comprehensive commercial citator not run.

Open recorded mirror (not the official host) ↗

Linked modules

United States v. Portillo

Holding or rule used

  • Rule 36 may not be used to make a substantive alteration to a criminal sentence, but a court may correct clerical errors in the written judgment at any time, for example to conform it to the oral sentence; a minor, mechanical correction that does not make the sentence more onerous is clerical (363 F.3d at 1164–65).

Material limitation

Pinpoints checked against CourtListener star pagination. Comprehensive commercial citator not run.

Source

363 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2004): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/76508/united-states-v-byron-leonel-portillo/