United States of America v. Vincent George Parks

19-10391Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit28 gen 2021

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
VINCENT GEORGE PARKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-10391
D.C. No. 1:82-cr-00123-AWI-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Vincent George Parks appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion to correct the judgment under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
for clear error the denial of a Rule 36 motion, see United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d
* 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
JAN 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-10391
1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985), and we affirm.
In his Rule 36 motion, Parks asserted that on March 1, 1983, he pleaded
guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), unarmed bank robbery, and that the clerk of court
erred by including subsection (d) of § 2113, armed bank robbery, in the written
judgment. The district court did not clearly err by denying Parks’s motion. The
record shows that Parks was charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of
armed bank robbery, in violation of § 2113(a) and (d). Thus, the judgment
contains no clerical error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36; see also United States v.
Penna, 319 F.3d 509, 513 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Rule 36 is a vehicle for correcting
clerical mistakes.”).
We do not consider Parks’s contention that he received ineffective assistance
of counsel or any other argument or allegation raised for the first time on appeal.
See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.