Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John F. BIG LEGGINS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-25
Citations: 675 F. App'x 778
Docket Number: No. 16-30079
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John F. BIG LEGGINS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges,
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 778–779

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John F. BIG LEGGINS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30079
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 25, 2017
Leif Johnson, Tim Tatarka, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
John F. Big Leggins, Jr., Pro Se
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, 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
John Big Leggins, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to correct a clerical error in the judgment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Big Leggins sought to correct the written judgment, which he contends erroneously states that restitution payments are to be made during his term of incarceration. He argues that this conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence, which he claims delayed restitution payments until the commencement of his supervised release term. We agree with the district court that there is no conflict between the written judgment and oral pronouncement of sentence, which was silent as to when restitution payments will commence. Thus, the district court did not clearly err in finding that there was no clerical error in the judgment that warranted correction under Rule 36. See United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.