KEITH STANSELL

v.

SAMARK JOSE LOPEZ BELLO

[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit No. 20-13660 KEITH STANSELL, MARC GONSALVES, THOMAS HOWES, JUDITH G. JANIS, as Personal Representative and sole heir of the Estate of Greer Janis, CHRISTOPHER T. JANIS, MICHAEL I. JANIS, JONATHAN N. JANIS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus SAMARK JOSE LOPEZ BELLO, YAKIMA TRADING CORPORATION, EPBC HOLDINGS, LTD.,

20-13660 Opinion of the Court 3 JORDAN, Circuit Judge. In 2010, four plaintiffs sued the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia or FARC) and related parties under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333. [fn 1] They based their claims on the FARC's commission of offenses like kidnapping and murder in Colombia. The plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendants in the Middle District of Florida, and based on their submissions the district court awarded them significant damages. Collectively, the plaintiffs were awarded $106 million in compensatory damages, and that amount was trebled under § 2333 so that the total was $318 million. The final judgment entered by the clerk described the monetary awards to each of the plaintiffs (including the trebled portions) as “compensatory damages.” D.E. 233 at 1. After obtaining that judgment, the plaintiffs sought to attach the assets of third parties blocked by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. See, e.g., Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, 771 F. 3d 713, 722 (11th Cir. 2014). As relevant here, in 2019 the plaintiffs instituted garnishment proceedings in the Southern District of Florida to attach the assets of Samark López Bello and several limited liability companies he owns or controls. The 1 This appeal was previously consolidated with Case Nos. 20-11736, 20-12467, & 20-12545. Because this appeal arises out of different proceedings before a different district court, we sever it from the other appeals and resolve it sepа- rately in this opinion.

20-13660 Opinion of the Court 5 corrected under Rule 60(a), which deals with clerical mistakes, oversights, and omissions. See id. at 10–14. On appeal, the López appellants contend that the district court erred in denying their Rule 60(a) motion. We disagree and affirm. Rule 60(a) provides that a court "may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record." We review a Rule 60(a) ruling "for abuse of discretion. But the determination of whether it is Rule 60(a) that authorizes the correction—as opposed to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)—is a question of law that we review de novo.” Rivera v. PNS Stores, Inc., 647 F. 3d 188, 193 (5th Cir. 2011). Statutes providing for treble damages "defy easy categorization as compensatory or punitive in nature. Whether treble damages under a given statute are considered compensatory or punitive is an intensely fact-based inquiry that may vary statute-to-statute.” Alea London Ltd. v. Am. Home Servs., Inc., 638 F. 3d 768, 777 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing various Supreme Court cases). Regardless of how treble damages under the ATA are characterized—a question we do not address today—the correction sought by the López appellants was not clerical or ministerial in nature and therefore not permitted by Rule 60(a). "Errors that affect substantial rights of the parties . . . are beyond the scope of [R]ule 60(a).” Mullins v. Nickel Plate Mining Co.,

AFFIRMED.

[fn 1]: In 2010, four plaintiffs sued the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia or FARC) and related parties under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333.