Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0579-01.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. Jason ANDRE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10244
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 24, 2017
    Michael Anthony Humphreys, Cristina D. Silva, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLY — 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
    Jason Andre, Pro Se
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jason Andre appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to correct an error in his plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Andre contends that the district court erred by declining to correct an erroneous Guidelines citation in his plea agreement. Andre does not cite any authority to support his contention that a nonbinding plea agreement between the parties falls within Rule 36’s purview. Moreover, the record reflects that the sentencing court cited the correct Guidelines provision in imposing the sentence, and the judgment accurately reflects the court’s oral pronouncement of Andre’s sentence. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying Andre’s motion. See United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398,1400 (9th Cir. 1985).

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