United States v. Christopher Niu ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 13 2019
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 17-10379
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:06-cr-00594-SOM-4
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    CHRISTOPHER NIU,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Hawaii
    Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 11, 2019**
    Before:      CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    Christopher Niu appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
    motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to amend the presentence
    investigation report (“PSR”). 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).
    Niu argues that the district court erred by declining to amend the PSR to
    reflect the three-level aggravating role enhancement agreed to by the parties in the
    plea agreement, rather than the four-level enhancement recommended by the
    probation officer. We review for clear error the denial of a Rule 36 motion. See
    United States v. Dickie, 
    752 F.2d 1398
    , 1400 (9th Cir. 1985). Assuming without
    deciding that Rule 36 applies to presentence reports, we conclude that the district
    court did not clearly err because the change Niu sought was not a clerical change.
    See United States v. Penna, 
    319 F.3d 509
    , 513 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Rule 36 is a
    vehicle for correcting clerical mistakes but it may not be used to correct judicial
    errors in sentencing.”). Furthermore, Niu did not show that the PSR was
    erroneous. Niu’s contentions that the government breached the plea agreement and
    that the district court erred by denying his motion for a sentence reduction also do
    not provide a basis for relief under Rule 36. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36; 
    Penna, 319 F.3d at 513
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    17-10379
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-10379

Filed Date: 6/13/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/13/2019