Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Russell Eugene SCHLEINING, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-26
Citations: 362 F. App'x 889
Docket Number: No. 09-30175
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Russell Eugene SCHLEINING, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 889–889

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Russell Eugene SCHLEINING, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30175.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 26, 2010.
Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Russell Eugene Schleining, Sheridan, OR, pro se.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, 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
Russell Eugene Schleining appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to correct the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Schleining contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion to correct the judgment because the judgment contains an incorrect reference to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), which was the result of a clerical error. The record indicates that any error was not clerical in nature thus, the district court's decision to deny the motion was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Kaye, 739 F.2d 488, 491 (9th Cir.1984).
Schleining's motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.