OPINION

In 1999, the District Court sentenced Appellant Carl Anthony Knight to life imprisonment following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. In January 2014, Knight filed a pro se motion with the District Court, asking the court to correct a “simple clerical error” in his judgment of sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. 1 Knight claimed that “the typist in the clerk[’s] office” had “fail[ed] to check the correct box [i]n the State[ment] of Reasons” section of the judgment. 2 In that section, there are two boxes. The first box should have been checked if the court adopted the factual findings and guideline application in the presentence report without exception. The second box should have been checked if the court adopted the factual findings and guideline application in the presentence report with one or more exceptions. Knight’s judgment of sentence has the first box checked.

On January 9, 2014, the District Court denied Knight’s Rule 36 motion, concluding that no clerical error had been made because the court had, in fact, adopted the factual findings and guideline application in the presentenee report without exception. This pro se appeal followed.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 3 For the reason given by the District Court, we agree with the court’s denial of Knight’s Rule 36 motion. 4 Because this appeal does *82 not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s January 9, 2014 order. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.