Rule 60(a) provides that a court “may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” This portion of the rule allows only for correction of “clerical errors”–blunders in framing the judgment to reflect the district court’s actual rulings. Rule 60(a) is limited to ensuring that the final judgment correctly captures the rulings that the district court actually made, and it does not provide an opportunity for the district court to “change[] its mind.” Here, an earlier 9th Circuit decision in the same case held that the district court had refrained from ruling on who (as between Optional and DAS) owned money that the US government had forfeited. Optional then filed a Rule 60(a) motion to amend the judgment to indicate that it owned the money, not DAS. In this instance, the 9th Circuit exercised its power to grant a motion for summary affirmance and directed Optional and its counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for their appeal. The correction that Optional had sought would conflict with the prior 9th Circuit decision which held that the district court had not decided this issue.