United States of America v. John Wesley Jingles

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOHN WESLEY JINGLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-10107
D.C. No. 2:98-cr-00431-KJM-
CMK-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
John Wesley Jingles appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion to correct the amended judgment under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and
remand.
* 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).
FILED
AUG 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-10107
Jingles asserts that the amended judgment contains three clerical errors and
argues that the district court erred by declining to correct them. The record
reflects, and the government concedes, that the amended judgment incorrectly lists
a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and fails to reflect that the sentencing court
waived interest on the imposed fine. The amended judgment further states that the
term of supervised release is 60 months, which we conclude is also a clerical error
because it does not accurately reflect the lower term imposed on some of the
counts of conviction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36; United States v. Kaye, 739 F.2d
488, 490 (9th Cir. 1984) (purpose of Rule 36 is to “conform the sentence to the
term which the record indicates was intended”). Assuming without deciding that
clerical errors in a judgment are reviewed for harmlessness, we conclude that the
government has not met its burden of showing that the clerical errors in the
amended judgment are harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); United States v. Kyle,
734 F.3d 956, 962 (9th Cir. 2013) (government bears burden of showing
harmlessness). We, therefore, remand for the district court to correct the amended
judgment.1
On page two of the amended judgment, the district court is directed to delete
the reference to 21 U.S.C. § 846 and delete the words “conspiracy to,” in regard to
1 In light of this disposition, we do not reach Jingles’s argument that the district
court violated the rule of mandate.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-10107
count numbers 21 and 22. On page four of the amended judgment, the district
court is directed to amend the term of supervised release to reflect the terms that
the sentencing court imposed on each count of conviction during its oral
pronouncement of sentence. Finally, on page six of the amended judgment, the
district court is directed to amend the criminal monetary penalties to reflect that the
interest requirement on the $1,000,000 fine is waived.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

-- 3 of 3 --