Case ID: f-appx_445/html/0982-01.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. Vince Edward WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50606.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 5, 2011.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Julie J. Shemitz, Esquire, Michael Jay Stern, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Vince Edward Wilson, Herlong, CA, pro se.
    Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vince Edward Wilson appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Wilson contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion to correct an alleged clerical error in the amended judgment that increased his sentence. There is no error in the amended judgment. Accordingly, the district court correctly denied the motion. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 36 (only permitting court to correct a “clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.