Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

U.S. v. JONES, 275 Fed.Appx. 561 (8th Cir. 2008)

United States, Appellee, v. Kenneth Jay STILL, Appellant., 275 F. App'x 561 (8th Cir. 2008)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2008-05-01
Topic
general

U.S. v. JONES, 275 Fed.Appx. 561 (8th Cir. 2008) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kenneth Jay STILL, Appellant. No. 07-3339.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.Submitted: April 15, 2008. Filed: May 1, 2008. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. v. JONES, 275 Fed.Appx. 561 (8th Cir. 2008). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

U.S. v. JONES,275 Fed.Appx. 561(8th Cir. 2008)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kenneth Jay STILL, Appellant.
No. 07-3339.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 15, 2008.
Filed: May 1, 2008.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Before GRUENDER, BALDOCK1and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth Jay Still filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure36seeking to vacate his supervised release term, alleging that it violated his 2004 plea agreement. The district court2denied his motion. Rule 36 provides for the correction of clerical errors, which is not the proper basis to bring his motion.See United States v. Yakle,463 F.3d 810,811(8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) ("[T]here is no mere scrivener's mistake here, and so we cannot afford [the defendant] relief under Rule 36."). Alternatively, Still argues he is entitled to relief under18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), but that statute provides no authority for a district court to revisit the imposition of a term of supervised release.SeeUnited States v. Hatten,167 F.3d 884,886(5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we rejected the bases upon which Still relies for the relief he seeks, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.3
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩
  2. The Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. ↩
  3. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. ↩
  4. The Government's motion to dismiss is denied as moot. ↩