Kenneth Jay Still filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 seeking to vacate his supervised release term, alleging that it violated his 2004 plea agreement. The district court 2 denied his motion. Rule 36 provides for the correction of clerical errors, which is not the proper basis to bring his motion. See United, States v. Yakle, 463 F.3d 810, 811 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“[T]here is no mere scrivener’s mistake here, and so we cannot afford [the defendant] relief under Rule 36.”). Alternatively, Still argues he is entitled to relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), but that statute provides no authority for a district court to revisit the imposition of a term of supervised release. See United States v. Hatten, 167 F.3d 884, 886 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we rejected the bases upon which Still relies for the relief he seeks, and we affirm the judgment of the district court. 3