Goodwin

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Robert Goodwin (“Goodwin” or “Appellant”) appeals from the district court’s correction of his judgment from a 1989 conviction. Goodwin challenges the district court’s action as improperly taken under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, claiming that the option of correcting the judgment should have been analyzed *513 by the district court under Rule 35 instead of Rule 36. The Government urges affirmance, arguing that the district court properly corrected Appellant’s 1989 judgment pursuant to Rule 36.

The district court’s determination that it had jurisdiction to grant the Government’s request for correction of judgment under Rule 36 is subject to de novo review. See United States v. Neville, 985 F.2d 992, 994 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 943 , 113 S.Ct. 2425 , 124 L.Ed.2d 646 (1993). We review the district court’s grant of a Rule 36 motion, including the necessary factual determinations therein, for clear error. United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam).

According to Goodwin, the Government sought to alter the sentence he received in 1989. A district court, however, may modify a sentence only under a mandate from…