Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lyle Gerald JOHNS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-23
Citations: 623 F. App'x 338
Docket Number: No. 15-10060
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lyle Gerald JOHNS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 338–338

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lyle Gerald JOHNS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10060.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 23, 2015.
Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lyle Gerald Johns, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Lyle Gerald Johns appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 motion to correct the presentence report. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Johns contends that the presentence report erroneously states that he was "the leader of five persons or more" and therefore subject to an aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(a). We review for clear error the denial of a Rule 36 motion. See United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam). Assuming without deciding that Rule 36 applies to presentence reports, the. district court properly denied Johns's motion because the statement in the presen-tence report is not a clerical error. See United States v. Penna, 319 F.3d 509, 513 (9th Cir.2003) ("Rule 36 is a vehicle for correcting clerical mistakes but it may not be used to correct judicial errors in sentencing."). Furthermore, Johns's challenge to the presentence report was rejected by the court on the merits prior to sentencing.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.