Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Madison WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-22
Citations: 684 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: Nos. 15-30379; 15-30380; 15-30381; 15-30382
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Madison WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 684
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Madison WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 15-30379
15-30380
15-30381
15-30382
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2017
Filed March 22, 2017
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Johnny Madison Williams, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to correct the judgment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm,
Williams contends that the amended judgment should be corrected to apportion his 1104-month aggregate sentence be tween his various crimes of conviction. We review for clear error. See United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985). Williams is not entitled to relief, because he has not identified any clerical error in the amended judgment. Rather, the amended judgment accurately reflects the district court's oral pronouncement of Williams's sentence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36; 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.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,