United States v. Kenneth Still
275 F. App'x 561
8th Cir.
2008
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 Before GRUENDER, BALDOCK [1] and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

________________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Jay Still filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 seeking to vacate his supervised release term, alleging that it violated his 2004 plea agreement. The district court [2] denied his motion. Rule 36 provides for the correction *2 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 under 18 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. See United 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]

______________________________

Notes

[1] The Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

[2] The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

[3] The Government’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot. -2-