Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent George PARKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-10391

Decided: January 28, 2021

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Joseph Barton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff - Appellee Vincent George Parks, Pro Se


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 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).


Copied to clipboard