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:T40c,MEMORANDUM Jason Andre appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to correct an error in his plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Andre contends that the district court erred by declining to correct an erroneous Guidelines citation in his plea agreement. Andre does not cite any authority to support his contention that a nonbinding plea agreement between the parties falls within Rule 36’s purview. Moreover, the record reflects that the sentencing court cited the correct Guidelines provision in imposing the sentence, and the judgment accurately reflects the court’s oral pronouncement of Andre’s sentence. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying Andre’s motion. See United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398,1400 (9th Cir. 1985). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T439,

MEMORANDUM

Jason Andre appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to correct an error in his plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Andre contends that the district court erred by declining to correct an erroneous Guidelines citation in his plea agreement. Andre does not cite any authority to support his contention that a nonbinding plea agreement between the parties falls within Rule 36’s purview. Moreover, the record reflects that the sentencing court cited the correct Guidelines provision in imposing the sentence, and the judgment accurately reflects the court’s oral pronouncement of Andre’s sentence. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying Andre’s motion. See United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398,1400 (9th Cir. 1985).

AFFIRMED.

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