Federal prisoner Efrain Reyes appeals pro se from the May 5, 2014 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying his motion to correct his Judgment and Commitment Order (“J & C Order”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s May 5, 2014 order.

I.

In 2006, the District Court sentenced Reyes to 396 months in prison following his conviction for possessing 500 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to distribute. In March 2014, he filed a pro se motion with the District Court, seeking to correct a “simple clerical error” in the court’s J & C Order pursuant to Rule 36. 1 In the section of the J & C Order that identifies his offense and the pertinent statutory provisions, one of the statutes listed is 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). In his motion, Reyes claimed that this statute *154 “must be followed with an (ii)” (referring to § 841(b)(l)(B)(ii)). In making this claim, he indicated that he was not seeking to disturb his sentence or his underlying conviction.

On May 5, 2014, the District Court denied Reyes’s Rule 86 motion, concluding that no clerical error had been made because the J & C Order “accurately reflects the statutory provisions underlying [his] conviction and sentence.” This appeal followed. 2

II.

Section 841(b)(1)(B) sets forth the mandatory minimum and maximum sentences for certain drug offenses. The drugs and drug amounts that are covered by this statute are listed in subsections (i) through (viii). Following those subsections is an unnumbered paragraph that identifies the length of the applicable mandatory minimum and maximum sentences. Here, Reyes’s argument appears to rest on his belief that subsection (ii), which provides that an offense involving 500 grams or more of cocaine is covered by this statute, is the only part of the statute that governed his criminal case. He is mistaken, however, because the unnumbered paragraph setting forth the applicable mandatory minimum and maximum sentences governed, too. Accordingly, we agree with the District Court that § 841(b)(1)(B) was correctly listed on the J & C Order.

Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s May 5, 2014 order. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. 3