Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Falasha ALI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-20
Citations: 654 F. App'x 322
Docket Number: No. 15-10033
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Falasha ALI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 654
Pages: 322–323

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Falasha ALI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10033
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 20, 2016
Amber Marie Craig, Adam McMeen Flake, Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Falasha Ali, Florence, CO, Pro Se.
Before: BEA, WATFORD, 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
Falasha Ali appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his "Motion for Correction of Clerical Error and Omission Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36." We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court correctly concluded that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 does not permit Ali to challenge the criminal history calculation in his presen-tence report or the court's competency finding. See United States v. Penna, 319 F.3d 609, 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."). The district court also correctly concluded that it lacked authority to modify the presentence report under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. See United States v. Catabran, 884 F.2d 1288, 1289 (9th Cir. 1989) ("[OJnee the district court has imposed sentence, the court lacks jurisdiction under Rule 32 to hear challenges to a presentence report.").
The district court properly treated Ali's remaining claims as a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, for which he did not obtain preauthorization from this court, as required by Section 2255(h).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.