United States v. Emmanuel Ambrosio, 699 F. App'x 921

Defendant Emmanuel Ambrosio pleaded guilty and was convicted of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime; the written judgment described the predicate as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Plea agreement, plea colloquy, Count 3 of the indictment, and the PSR consistently identified the predicate offense as a drug trafficking crime.
More than nine years after judgment, the government moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to amend the judgment to say the firearm offense was in relation to a drug trafficking crime (not a crime of violence).
Ambrosio opposed, arguing the amendment prejudiced him by foreclosing post-conviction relief options that relied on the erroneous description.
The district court granted the Rule 36 motion; Ambrosio appealed the amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 36 may be used to change the judgment’s offense description from "crime of violence" to "drug trafficking crime."	Ambrosio argued amendment prejudiced him and was improper after long delay.	Government argued the original description was clerical and the record shows the correct predicate was drug trafficking.	Court held Rule 36 permissible because the record clearly showed drug trafficking was the predicate.
Whether the amendment unjustly prejudiced the defendant (foreclosing collateral relief).	Ambrosio said amending the judgment removed a basis for post-conviction challenges.	Government said amendment did not increase sentence or otherwise create reversible prejudice.	Court held no reversible prejudice: amendment was clerical and did not alter the substantive sentence.

United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2004) (Rule 36 cannot make substantive changes; clerical errors may be corrected)
United States v. Davis, 841 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2016) (amendment of judgment’s offense description permitted when correct offense is clear and amendment causes no prejudice)