USA V. TERRY DAVIS, No. 16-10378 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-10378 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
