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:T4ca,MEMORANDUM Victor Pacheco appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Pacheco contends that the judgment should be corrected to reflect the district court’s intent for his sentence to run concurrently with an undischarged state sentence. Specifically, he argues that, under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)(l), he is entitled to credit for time served in state custody before he was convicted and sentenced in federal court. The district court properly denied Pacheco’s Rule 36 motion. See United States v. Penna, 319 F.3d 509, 513 (9th Cir.2003) (“Rule 36 is a vehicle for correcting clerical mistakes but it may not be used to correct judicial errors in sentencing.”) (emphasis in original); United States v. Kaye, 739 F.2d 488, 490 (9th Cir.1984) (“[T]he provisions of Rule 36 do not permit a substantive change in the period of incarceration which the defendant must serve.”). Pacheco’s request for appointment of counsel is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T501,

MEMORANDUM

Victor Pacheco appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Pacheco contends that the judgment should be corrected to reflect the district court’s intent for his sentence to run concurrently with an undischarged state sentence. Specifically, he argues that, under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)(l), he is entitled to credit for time served in state custody before he was convicted and sentenced in federal court.

The district court properly denied Pacheco’s Rule 36 motion. See United States v. Penna, 319 F.3d 509, 513 (9th Cir.2003) (“Rule 36 is a vehicle for correcting clerical mistakes but it may not be used to correct judicial errors in sentencing.”) (emphasis in original); United States v. Kaye, 739 F.2d 488, 490 (9th Cir.1984) (“[T]he provisions of Rule 36 do not permit a substantive change in the period of incarceration which the defendant must serve.”).

Pacheco’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.