changing conviction statute

The first mention of a fictitious charge (plea) in my case, at my plea hearing :

The Judgment of conviction (page 2) :

Where the conviction statue is stated as "nrs 201.300(a)". :

Next the Nevada supreme Court opinion (page 3) properly defined the above as the fictitious charge three times :

However, later, the Nevada supreme Court opinion (page2) redefines fictitious as a clerical error. Note: from this point, the mention of "fictitious" is missing in the record :

Go to typographical error to see the origin of "clerical error".

However, the district court ignores the supreme court's "should order" and changes amended judgment of conviction (page 2) to say "nrs 201.300(2)(b)(2)" :

The Nevada supreme Court opinion answers that by saying :

So, the nsc excuses the district court's conflicting change. Why? Because, I allege the courts are now trying to ignore the whole fictitious charge issue, which goes back to the procedural defects of my guilty plea.

To note, the legal statue for pandering of a child for my case would be 201.300(1)(a),(2)(b)(2) from the 2012 statue :

Go to prison sex offender registration typographical error