U.S. v. SWANSON, 2:09-cr-00222-HDM-PAL. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20141118c36
Visitors: 15
Filed: Nov. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. McKIBBEN, District Judge. Before the court is the defendant Anthony Antonio Swanson's motion for correction of record; and memorandum of points and authorities in support(#190). The government has responded (#191). Defendant did not file a reply. Defendant asserts the court may at any time "correct a clerical error in a judgment, order or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission." Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. While this is a correc
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. McKIBBEN, District Judge. Before the court is the defendant Anthony Antonio Swanson's motion for correction of record; and memorandum of points and authorities in support(#190). The government has responded (#191). Defendant did not file a reply. Defendant asserts the court may at any time "correct a clerical error in a judgment, order or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission." Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. While this is a correct..
More
ORDER
HOWARD D. McKIBBEN, District Judge.
Before the court is the defendant Anthony Antonio Swanson's motion for correction of record; and memorandum of points and authorities in support(#190). The government has responded (#191). Defendant did not file a reply.
Defendant asserts the court may at any time "correct a clerical error in a judgment, order or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission." Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. While this is a correct statement of the law, defendant misapplies it here. Rule 36 is a narrow provision limited to correction of errors of no more than clerical significance. United States v. Kaye, 739 F.2d 488, 490 (9th Cir. 1984).
Defendant is rearguing an issue raised in his initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. This issue was addressed in the court's May 14, 2014, order denying defendant's motion to vacate (#189). Defendant has not obtained authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, leaving the court without jurisdiction to consider the motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to request the requisite authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion deprives the district court of jurisdiction).
Accordingly, and based on the foregoing, defendant's motion for correction of record is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
