govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-6_91-cr-10038-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 Plainti
ff, 
 
v. Case No. 91-C R-10038-EFM 
 
LORENZO MORALES, 
 
 De
fendant. 
 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
Before the Court is pro se Defendant Lorenzo Morales’s second Motion for Correction of 
Record (Doc. 115) where he asks the Court to correct his 1994 sentencing judgment under Federal 
Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to reflect what he asserts is hi s correct social security number 
(“SSN”).1 Morales seeks this change to use his judgm ent as a second form of identification to 
prove his U.S. Citizenship in a separate de portation proceeding. The Government opposes this 
motion. 
Previously, the Court denied Morales’s first motion to corr ect his judgment because his 
case was transferred to the Southern District of Illinois years ago.2 Morales appealed, and the Tenth 
 
1 Because Morales proceeds pro se, th e Court holds his pleadings to “le ss stringent standards than formal 
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A pro se litigant is entitled to a liberal 
construction of his pleadings. See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t , 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007). But it is not the 
proper role of a district court to “assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 
1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 
2 Doc. 108. Morales also moved the Southern District of Illinois court, in part, to correct the SSN in his 
judgment there, which the District Court recently denied for lack of supporting proof. See United States v. Morales, 
2026 WL 1249482, at *1 (S.D. Ill. May 6, 2026) (“Additiona lly, Defendant lists a social security number that is 
different from his SSN currently on record and claims that supporting proof is attached, but no such exhibit has been 
provided.”). 

-2- 
 
 
Circuit affirmed the Court’s denial because “n o evidence accompanied th e motion to show the 
judgment had the incorrect social security number or to show the social security number provided 
in the motion [wa]s Morales’s correct social security number.”
3 Morales filed his second motion, 
which the Court denied stating that “nothing has changed” since his first motion. Morales appealed 
again, and the Tenth Circuit revers ed and remanded the Court’s deni al for the Court to consider 
Morales’s second motion on the merits.4 Specifically, the Court now considers whether Morales’s 
attached exhibit—a document titled “Case Prof ile” from the “Dodge City SRS Office” in Dodge 
City, Kansas—warrants a correction under Rule 36. 
Rule 36 provides: “[a]fter giving any notice it considers appropriate, 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.” 5 “Rule 36 is narrow, applying only to 
uncontroversial and non-substantive cl erical errors ‘of the sort that a clerk . . . might commit, 
mechanical in nature.’”6 In Morales’s second app eal, the Tenth Circuit noted that “Rule 36 is an 
appropriate vehicle to correct a potential clerical error in the social security number identified on 
a judgment.”7 The Tenth Circuit, however, has not arti culated what burden of proof must be met 
to establish a clerical error warranting relief under Rule 36, nor has it articulated its own standard 
 
3 United States v. Morales (Morales I), 2025 WL 3267335, at *2 (10th Cir. Nov. 24, 2025); Doc. 114. 
4 United States v. Morales (Morales II), 2026 WL 1020605, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 15, 2026); Doc. 124. 
5 Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. 
6 United States v. Kieffer (Kieffer II), 596 F. App’x 653, 660 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. 
Penson, 526 F.3d 331, 335 (6th Cir. 2008)). 
7 Morales II, 2026 WL 1020605, at *1 (citing United States v. Lonjose, 663 F.3d 1292, 1299 n.7 (10th Cir. 
2011)). 

-3- 
 
 
of review of a Rule 36 motion in a binding way.
8 Further, it is unclear what type of evidence is 
required to establish an individual’s correct SSN for Rule 36 purposes.9 
Turning to Morales’s evidence, although the C ourt has carefully reviewed the attached 
exhibit, it is not clear on its face what the document is. Morales offers no explanation in his motion. 
The document appears to be an excerpt from a 1995 social services case report for a “Morales, 
Shirley.” Amongst several individuals, the document lists a client name of “Morales Jr., Loren” as 
having a “SSN” matching the number that Morales purports is his legitimate SSN. The document 
further lists that “Morales Jr., Loren” has a “DOB” of May 16, 1961, which is the same as 
Morales’s date of birth listed on his 1994 sentencing judgment.10 These are the only commonalities 
the Court can glean between Morales, his motion, and his attached exhibit. 
Morales’s burden of proof is unclear, but a Rule 36 clerical error “should be so clear on the 
face of the record as to obviate the need for subsequent adversarial proceedings.” 11 Morales’s 
attached exhibit does not make it “so clear” to the Court that his legitimate SSN differs from what 
is listed in his 1994 sentencing judgment. In addition, the Government points out that it is unclear 
whether Morales has a legitimate SSN at all co nsidering Morales’s two federal convictions for 
 
8 See United States v. Gardner, 601 F. App’x 717, 719–20 (10th Cir. 2015) (“We have found no published 
Tenth Circuit decisions outlining the proper standard of review for such a claim. The most recent unpublished Tenth 
Circuit decision we have found . . . provides that the ‘denial of a Rule 36 motion [is reviewed] for abuse of discretion’” 
(citing United States v. Hayden, 10 F. App’x 647, 650 (10th Cir. 2001))). 
9 The Court’s research revealed a few written cases involving a motion for Rule 36 relief based on an 
erroneous SSN (two of which involve Morales), but those courts were not presented with any SSN evidence to consider 
and, thus, did not articulate what evidence could demonstrate a Rule 36 clerical error to a SSN. See, e.g., Morales I, 
2025 WL 3267335, at *2; Morales, 2026 WL 1249482, at *1; United States v. Cobb, 469 F. App’x 76, 77–78 (3d Cir. 
2012) (affirming the district court’s denial of a defendant’s request to change his SSN in his judgment under Rule 36 
because he “failed to provide any evidence to support his assertion that the number was incorrect”). 
10 See Doc. 108 at 2. 
11 United States v. Kieffer (Kieffer III), 702 F. App’x 734, 737 (10th Cir. 2017) (citing Kieffer II, 596 F. 
App’x at 660; Penson, 526 F.3d at 335)). 

-4- 
 
 
unlawful reentry after deportation in other dist ricts and an order of deportation against him.
12 
Given the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of Morales’s SSN, if he has one, the Court 
concludes he is not entitled to Rule 36 relief. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Morales’s second Motion for Correction of Record 
(Doc. 115) is DENIED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated this 19th day of May, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
ERIC F. MELGREN 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
 
12 See Doc. 121 at 2 (citing United States v. Morales , 2024 WL 3845475, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2024); 
United States v. Lorenzo Morales-Arambula, Case No. 2:18-cr-20138-TGB-DRG (ECF No. 20)). 

Passage view · GavelSight