USA v. Gallegos-Paz

Filing 920090218

Opinion

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-20897 Conference Calendar February 18, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JESUS GALLEGOS-PAZ, also known as Jesus Gallegos Paz, also known as Jesus Paz Gallegos Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-258-ALL Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jesus Gallegos-Paz asks us to direct the district court to correct his judgment of conviction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to reflect that he was convicted under 8 U.S.C. 1326 of knowing and unlawful presence in the United States after deportation following conviction for an aggravated felony. Section 1326 is entitled "[r]eentry of removed aliens." The judgment describes the offense as "[i]llegal re-entry." Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. * No. 07-20897 Rule 36 authorizes the correction of clerical errors, which exist when "the court intended one thing but by merely clerical mistake or oversight did another." United States v. Steen, 55 F.3d 1022, 1026 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Because the description of the offense closely tracks the title of 1326, there is no indication of mistake or oversight. Rather, it appears that the district court intentionally used the phrase "[i]llegal reentry" to refer to 1326 generally. See United States v. Buendia-Rangel, 553 F.3d 378, 379 (5th Cir. 2008). Therefore, there is no clerical error, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?