Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUTANG WU, a.k.a. Suling Hong Wu, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-19
Citations: 466 F. App'x 636
Docket Number: No. 11-50199
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUTANG WU, a.k.a. Suling Hong Wu, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 636–636

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUTANG WU, a.k.a. Suling Hong Wu, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50199.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 19, 2012.
Benjamin Robert Barron, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Suling Hong Wu, Taft, CA, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sutang Wu appeals pro se the denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct a clerical error in his judgment and commitment order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Wu seeks to correct the judgment and commitment order to reflect that his participation in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program is voluntary rather than mandatory. Because there is no error, clerical or otherwise, the district court properly declined to grant relief. See United States v. Penna, 319 F.3d 509, 513 (9th Cir.2003) ("Rule 36 is a vehicle for correcting clerical errors in a judgment of conviction.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.