Because the district court lacked jurisdiction, we vacate the May 1 order. The government argues, pursuant to United States v. Burd, 86 F.3d 285, 288-89 (2d Cir. 1996), that because the district court was required to consider U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(e), Whaley's original sentence was illegal and we should vacate and remand for resentencing de novo. We agree that the district court erred as a matter of law in failing to apply U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(e) and in interpreting § 3585(b)(1) as applying to the offense of violating supervised release rather than as applying to the underlying offense.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 (emphases added). We have viewed "clerical" errors as "minor, uncontroversial errors," United States v. Werber , 51 F.3d 342, 347 (2d Cir. 1995) (" Werber "), errors " ‘not ... of judgment or even of misidentification, but merely of recitation, of the sort that a clerk or amanuensis might commit,’ " United States v. Burd , 86 F.3d 285, 288 (2d Cir. 1996) (" Burd ") (quoting Werber , 51 F.3d at 347 ). "An amanuensis is ‘one employed to write from dictation or to copy manuscript.’ " Burd , 86 F.3d at 288 (quoting Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1965)).

A court has authority under Rule 36 "to correct only clerical errors in the transcription of judgments, not to effectuate its unexpressed intentions at the time of sentencing." United States v. Werber, 51 F.3d 342, 343 (2d Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Burd, 86 F.3d 285, 288 (2d Cir. 1996) ("[A] clerical error must not be one of judgment or even of misidentification, but merely of recitation, of the sort that a clerk . . . might commit, mechanical in nature." (citation omitted)).

United States v. Burd, 86 F.3d 285, 287 (2d Cir. 1996). Rule 36 provides that, after giving appropriate notice, "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."

We review the denial of a Rule 36 motion de novo. United States v. Burd, 86 F.3d 285, 287 (2d Cir. 1996). Rule 36 provides that, after giving appropriate notice, "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.

United States v. Burd, 86 F.3d 285, 288 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Werber, 51 F.3d 342, 343 (2d Cir.1995)); see also United States v. Jimenez, No. 96 Cr. 808, 1999 WL 1125112, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 1999) (“Rule 36 covers only minor, uncontroversial errors”).

A clerical error is generally an error of recitation and mechanical in nature. See United States v. Burd, 86 F.3d 285, 288 (2d Cir.1996). In Burd, the Second Circuit denied a motion to correct because "the correction required more than substituting a right number for a wrong number" and "changed the internal structure of the sentence."

“A clerical error is minor or uncontroversial, an error of recitation, of the sort that a clerk or amanuensis might commit, mechanical in nature, amounting to little more than substituting a right number for a wrong number.” Urena, 2010 WL 4823593, at *4 (quoting United States v. Burd, 86 F.3d 285, 288 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Werber, 51 F.3d 342, 347 (2d Cir.1995)) (internal quotations marks and brackets omitted). In the Court's view, although the Defendant's motions are, in part, unopposed by the Government, neither Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 nor Fed.R.Crim.P. 36 is an appropriate vehicle for granting the relief of which the Defendant seeks. First, as indicated above, the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the Defendant's motion pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32, because that Rule only “provides a means for addressing inaccuracies prior to sentencing [and] does not provide for a means of correcting the [presentence report]” or “standing alone, give a district court jurisdiction to correct inaccuracies in a [PSR] report after a defendant has been sentenced.”

" A clerical error is "minor [or] uncontroversial," United States v. Werber, 51 F.3d 342, 347 (2d Cir. 1995), an error "of recitation, of the sort that a clerk or amanuensis might commit, mechanical in nature," amounting to little more than "substituting a right number for a wrong number." United States v. Burd, 86 F.3d 285, 288 (2d Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). "Rule 36 authorizes a district judge, at any time, to amend the written judgment so that it conforms with the oral sentence pronounced by the court.

This Rule should not be used to correct "an error of law" or an error "of judgment." United States v. Werber, 51 F.3d 342, 247-48 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Burd, 86 F.3d 285, 288 (2d Cir. 1996). After consideration, the Court has determined that the sentencing error that took place was not an error of judgment or an error of law.