Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0469-01.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. Lourdes VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10580
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 01, 2016
    Erica Leigh Seger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Jose H. Robles, Attorney, Jose H. Robles, Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lourdes Valenzuela appeals from the district court’s order under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure amending Valenzuela’s 1991 judgment of conviction to correct a clerical error regarding the statutes of conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Although Valenzuela concedes on appeal that the original judgment cited the incorrect statute for Count 3, he argues that the district court was required to consult the transcript of the oral pronouncement of sentence before amending the judgment. We disagree. The indictment, jury instructions, and jury verdict all demonstrate that Valenzuela was charged with and convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1) and (2), rather than 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a), in Count 3. Under these circumstances, the district court did not clearly err in correcting the statute of conviction for Count 3. See United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985) (grant of a Rule 36 motion is reviewed for clear error).

Moreover, contrary to Valenzuela’s argument, changing the statutory citation for Count 3 from 18 U.S.C. § 2244 to 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1) and (2) does not constitute a substantive change in the judgment because the amendment does not alter the term of Valenzuela’s sentence. See United States v. Kaye, 739 F.2d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 1984) (Rule 36 permitted amendment to add omitted count numbers but not amendment to increase sentence based on district court’s inadvertent failure to impose sentence on omitted counts).

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