Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0551-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10378
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 3, 2017
    Adam McMeen Flake, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Anthony P. Sgro, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Patt, Sgro and Lewis, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Terry Davis appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 requesting that the court amend the judgment and record regarding his violation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

In his Rule 36 motion, Davis asked the district eourt to amend the record to clarify that, while he admitted to violating the condition of his supervised release requiring him to maintain lawful employment, he did not admit to all the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Petition for Summons for Offender under Supervision concerning that violation. Davis conceded, however, that he “did not present this distinction to the [district court] in such a way that the [c]ourt was able to note this in the record.” Furthermore, the judgment itself correctly states that Davis admitted to violating the “maintain employment” condition of his supervised release; it does not contain particular facts that formed the basis of that admission. Under these circumstances, the district court did not clearly err by finding that Davis’s requested amendment to the record did not involve a clerical error or error arising from oversight or omission correctable by a Rule 36 motion. See United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985) (denial of Rule 36 motion reviewed for clear error); United States v. Kaye, 739 F.2d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 1984) (Rule 36 applies to clerical errors only).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.