United States v. Terry Davis , 693 F. App'x 551 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10378
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00298-JCM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TERRY DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Terry Davis appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 requesting that the court amend the
judgment and record regarding his violation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
In his Rule 36 motion, Davis asked the district court to amend the record to
clarify that, while he admitted to violating the condition of his supervised release
requiring him to maintain lawful employment, he did not admit to all the factual
allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Petition for Summons for Offender
under Supervision concerning that violation. Davis conceded, however, that he
“did not present this distinction to the [district court] in such a way that the [c]ourt
was able to note this in the record.” Furthermore, the judgment itself correctly
states that Davis admitted to violating the “maintain employment” condition of his
supervised release; it does not contain particular facts that formed the basis of that
admission. Under these circumstances, the district court did not clearly err by
finding that Davis’s requested amendment to the record did not involve a clerical
error or error arising from oversight or omission correctable by a Rule 36 motion.
See United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985) (denial of Rule 36
motion reviewed for clear error); United States v. Kaye, 739 F.2d 488, 491 (9th
Cir. 1984) (Rule 36 applies to clerical errors only).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-10378