USA v. Palauni

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
United States of America v. Usugafono Palauni
Case No. 3:20-cr-00003-TMB-MMS
By: 	THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
PROCEEDINGS: 	ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
Before the Court is Defendant Usugafono Palauni’s Motion to Modify Judgment to Correct
Clerical Error Pursuant to Federal Criminal Rule (“Rule”) 36 (the “Motion”).1 Palauni asks the
Court to amend the judgment by changing his 30-month sentence to 27 months. The Court
DENIES the Motion for the reasons stated below.
On September 23, 2020, the Court sentenced Palauni to serve 30 months in custody.2 Palauni
argues this 30-month sentence was premised on the Court’s mistaken belief that Palauni was in
primary federal custody between January 27 and May 6, 2020.3 This mistaken belief, Palauni
argues, stemmed from the Presentence Investigation Report, which says Palauni was “transferred
to federal custody” on January 27, 2020.4 Palauni asserts that contrary to the parties and the Court’s
understanding at the time of his sentencing, he was in primary state custody from September 28,
2019, until May 6, 2020, at which point he was transferred to primary federal custody.5
Because Palauni was in primary state custody during this period, the Department of Corrections
(“DOC”) credited Palauni’s time in custody between January 27 and May 6, 2020, toward his state
sentence.6 For this reason, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has said it will not give Palauni credit
for the same period when calculating his federal sentence.7
1 Dkt. 50 (Motion).
2 Dkt. 47 (Judgment).
3 Dkt. 50 at 2.
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Id. (“[T]he DOC credited Palauni with time between January 27 and May 6, 2020, towards his
revocation sentence. He did not begin ANY federal time or credit until May 6, 2020.”).
7 Id. at 2–3 (“Mr. Palauni and the undersigned have been informed that the BOP’s classification
and designation office in Grand Prairie, Texas, will not be giving Mr. Palauni credit for time spent
in custody after appearing in this matter between January 27, 2020, and May 6, 2020.”)
(emphasis in original).
Case 3:20-cr-00003-TMB-MMS Document 53 Filed 03/25/22 Page 1 of 2

2
In light of the BOP’s position, Palauni asks the Court to “provide him with credit for [the] period”
between January 27 and May 6 by reducing his 30-month sentence to 27 months.8 To justify this
request, he argues the Court contemplated Palauni serving a 30-month sentence inclusive of the
time between January 27 and May 6, 2020.9 Put another way, Palauni argues the Court would have
sentenced him to 27 months had it understood he would receive credit for this period toward his
state, not federal, sentence. Palauni argues the 30-month sentence therefore constitutes a “clerical
error” correctable under Rule 36, which permits the court to “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.”10
The Court DENIES the Motion because Palauni’s 30-month sentence was not a clerical error.
Palauni misinterprets the Court’s intent. Palauni reports he has received credit for the period
between January 27 and May 6, albeit toward his state, not federal, sentence. This fact, even if
known to the Court at the time of his sentencing, would not have impacted Palauni’s sentence. The
statute governing how federal sentences are calculated prohibits BOP from awarding a defendant
custody credit that has already “been credited against another sentence.”11 The Court did not intend
to circumvent this provision when sentencing Palauni and will not do so now.
Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge.
DATE: March 25, 2022.
8 Id. at 3 (“Mr. Palauni requests that this Court provide him with credit for that period and
effectively reduce his term of custody by three months, by way of an amended judgment correcting
the sentence.”).
9 Id.
10 Id. (quoting Fed. R. Crim P. 36).
11 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
Case 3:20-cr-00003-TMB-MMS Document 53 Filed 03/25/22 Page 2 of 2