Marcus Jones appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 motion to correct his presentence report (PSR) to omit references to “crack.” We find that Jones’s *24 proposed change does not amount to a clerical error or an error arising from oversight or omission. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. Jones did not object to the PSR prior to sentencing, see United States v. Paz, 411 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2005) (facts in PSR are deemed admitted unless objected to), and there is overwhelming evidence that the drugs at issue were crack cocaine, see United States v. Jones, 275 F.3d 673, 676-78 (8th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Jones’s motion for appellate counsel.