Case ID: f-appx_675/html/0778-01.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. John F. BIG LEGGINS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30079
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 25, 2017
    Leif Johnson, Tim Tatarka, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John F. Big Leggins, Jr., Pro Se
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges,
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John Big Leggins, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to correct a clerical error in the judgment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Big Leggins sought to correct the written judgment, which he contends erroneously states that restitution payments are to be made during his term of incarceration. He argues that this conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence, which he claims delayed restitution payments until the commencement of his supervised release term. We agree with the district court that there is no conflict between the written judgment and oral pronouncement of sentence, which was silent as to when restitution payments will commence. Thus, the district court did not clearly err in finding that there was no clerical error in the judgment that warranted correction under Rule 36. 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.