22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T433,MEMORANDUM Leticia Aidee Rosales-Escobedo appeals from the district court’s denial of her motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Rosales-Escobedo contends that the district court had authority under Rule 36 to strike the stipulation of removal provision from her plea agreement, and that it erred in failing to do so. The record reflects that Rosales-Escobedo voluntarily entered into the plea agreement knowing it contained the stipulation of removal. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that relief is not available to Rosales-Escobedo under Rule 36. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36; United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985) (stating standard of review); United States v. Kaye, 739 F.2d 488, 490 (9th Cir. 1984) (Rule 36 “is a narrow provision limited to correction of errors of no more than clerical significance”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T460,

MEMORANDUM

Leticia Aidee Rosales-Escobedo appeals from the district court’s denial of her motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Rosales-Escobedo contends that the district court had authority under Rule 36 to strike the stipulation of removal provision from her plea agreement, and that it erred in failing to do so. The record reflects that Rosales-Escobedo voluntarily entered into the plea agreement knowing it contained the stipulation of removal. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that relief is not available to Rosales-Escobedo under Rule 36. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36; United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985) (stating standard of review); United States v. Kaye, 739 F.2d 488, 490 (9th Cir. 1984) (Rule 36 “is a narrow provision limited to correction of errors of no more than clerical significance”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.