United States of America v. Eric Krieg

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 24, 2025*
Decided July 25, 2025
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
Nos. 24-1862, 24-2300
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ERIC KRIEG,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Hammond Division.
No. 2:17-CR-146-JVB-JEM
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen,
Judge.
O R D E R
Eric Krieg, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of separate
motions to correct his sentence and to unseal the statement of reasons for his sentence.
We consolidate Krieg’s appeals and affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

Nos. 24-1862, 24-2300 Page 2
In 2018, Krieg pleaded guilty to making an unregistered destructive device,
26 U.S.C. § 5861(f); id. § 5845(a),(f), mailing a destructive device, 18 U.S.C. § 1716(j)(2),
malicious use of explosive materials, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), and mailing a threatening
communication, 18 U.S.C. § 876(c). He was sentenced to 348 months’ imprisonment.
In April 2024, Krieg moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to
correct a clerical error in his sentence. He asserted that the judgment did not specify a
sentence for each conviction and thus did not make clear whether he was serving
consecutive or concurrent sentences for each count. The court denied the motion,
explaining that the judgment accurately reflected the cumulative prison term. Krieg
appealed this ruling the following month (appeal no. 24-1862).
In July 2024, Krieg moved to unseal the “statement of reasons” for imposing his
sentence. He stated that he needed the document to contest his sentence with the
Federal Bureau of Prisons. The district court denied the motion, explaining that it
provided reasons at Krieg’s sentencing hearing, that the transcript of that hearing was
not sealed, and that no statement of reasons had been prepared in writing. Krieg
promptly appealed this ruling (appeal no. 24-2300).
Because both of Krieg’s appeals stem from a similar factual background, we now
consolidate them for disposition. In appeal no. 24-1862, Krieg disputes the district
court’s determination that his request to clarify the nature of his sentence was beyond
the scope of what Rule 36 could correct. He maintains that the court, at sentencing,
failed to specify prison terms for each count of conviction and whether those terms
would be served concurrently or consecutively. But Rule 36 is limited to errors that are
clerical in nature, not judicial mistakes. See United States v. McClain, 16 F.4th 487, 492
(7th Cir. 2021); United States v. Daddino, 5 F.3d 262, 264–65 (7th Cir. 1993). And here
Krieg cannot identify any clerical error, for the written judgment accurately reflected
the judgment orally imposed.
In appeal no. 24-2300, Krieg asserts that he has a right to view the district court’s
statement of reasons, which, he says, the court refused to unseal. But the court cannot
unseal a document that does not exist. And the court did provide a statement of reasons
orally during Krieg’s sentencing hearing, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). Perhaps
Krieg means to refer to a “Statement of Reasons Form” (AO 245 SOR), which is an
administrative document meant to record data about criminal sentencing for the
Sentencing Commission and the Bureau of Prisons. But this document is not a public
record, see United States v. Lee, 897 F.3d 870, 874 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Jackson,
848 F.3d 460, 466 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2017), so the court need not make it publicly accessible.

-- 2 of 3 --

Nos. 24-1862, 24-2300 Page 3
Regardless, the district court’s oral statement would control over that form as the
explanation for Krieg’s sentence.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --