Case ID: f-appx_688/html/0427-01.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. Leticia Aidee ROSALES-ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50371
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 19, 2017
    Nicholas William Pilchak, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Sanjay Sobti, Esquire, Attorney, U.S. Law Center, Corona, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    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

Leticia Aidee Rosales-Escobedo appeals from the district court’s denial of her motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rosales-Escobedo contends that the district court had authority under Rule 36 to strike the stipulation of removal provision from her plea agreement, and that it erred in failing to do so. The record reflects that Rosales-Escobedo voluntarily entered into the plea agreement knowing it contained the stipulation of removal. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that relief is not available to Rosales-Escobedo under Rule 36. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36; United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985) (stating standard of review); United States v. Kaye, 739 F.2d 488, 490 (9th Cir. 1984) (Rule 36 “is a narrow provision limited to correction of errors of no more than clerical significance”).

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