Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leticia Aidee ROSALES-ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-19
Citations: 688 F. App'x 427
Docket Number: No. 15-50371
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leticia Aidee ROSALES-ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 427–427

Head Matter:
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),

Opinion:
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.