Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy A. McKENZIE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-01
Citations: 637 F. App'x 447
Docket Number: No. 14-30262
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy A. McKENZIE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 447–448

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy A. McKENZIE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-30262.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 2016.
Filed March 1, 2016.
Stephanie A. Van Marter, Assistant U.S., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a district court to correct "a clerical error" in a judgment. Fed. R.Crim.P. 36. McKenzie argues that when the district court entered the judgment in his case, she "erred" by failing to award him credit for the .time he spent in state custody prior to the date he was to begin serving his federal sentence. But the district court had no authority to award McKenzie credit for time served, even had she wanted to; only the Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons, may grant defendants credit for time served prior to the start of their federal sentences. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992); United States v. Peters, 470 F.3d 907, 909 (9th Cir.2006). The district court's failure to do something she was forbidden from doing was not an "error"— clerical or otherwise — that can be "corrected" via Rule 36.
That is not to say that McKenzie has no right to judicial process if he believes he has been wrongly denied credit for time he served prior to the start of his federal sentence. But Rule 36 is not the proper mechanism to assert his right to such cred it. See United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.1984).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.