Opinion
7:00-CR-12 (WDO).
May 29, 2007
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Harned's renewed Rule 36 Motion pursuant to which he requests the Court to correct the written judgment to state that half of any income "earned" by Mr. Harned while he is in prison goes toward payment of restitution and special assessments. As explained in this Court's previous order, because Harned is requesting the Court to modify the Amended Judgment in a way that is a substantive change and not a clerical error, his motion is not properly brought pursuant to Rule 36 and is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED.