United States of America v. Michael Edward Turman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL EDWARD TURMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10236
D.C. No. 1:08-cr-00207-LJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Michael Edward Turman appeals from the district court’s order denying his
motion to amend either the presentence report (“PSR”) or the judgment to include
information relating to his history of marijuana use. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Turman concedes that, at the time of his motion, the district court lacked
FILED
MAY 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

authority to modify his sentence but contends that the court nonetheless had
authority under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to modify both the PSR and
the judgment, which, he argues, are distinct from the sentence itself. We review de
novo. See United States v. Carter, 742 F.3d 440, 444 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam).
“Rule 36 is a vehicle for correcting clerical mistakes . . . .” United States v. Penna,
319 F.3d 509, 513 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court lacked authority to modify
either the PSR, see United States v. Catabran, 884 F.2d 1288, 1289 (9th Cir. 1989)
(per curiam) (“[O]nce the district court has imposed sentence, the court lacks
jurisdiction under Rule 32 to hear challenges to a presentence report.”), or the
judgment, see United States v. Ceballos, 671 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)
(district court lacked “authority to amend the sentence [to include a stipulated
housing recommendation] after entry of the judgment and commitment order”).
We need not reach the government’s contention that Turman would be
ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2) because the issue
has no bearing on this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
13-10236 2

-- 2 of 2 --