USA v. Ramon Barraza-Guzman


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-41195 Affirmed and Remanded] Judge: TMR , Judge: JES , Judge: ECP. Mandate pull date is 09/06/2011 for Appellant Ramon Barraza-Guzman [10-41195]

Download PDF
Case: 10-41195 Document: 00511571645 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-41195 Summary Calendar August 15, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAMON BARRAZA-GUZMAN, aka Gerardo De La Rosa-Mendosa, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:07-CR-82-1 Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ramon Barraza-Guzman was convicted in 2007 of being illegally present in the United States after having been deported following a conviction for a felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1), and was sentenced to 16 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. His term of supervised release began on October 23, 2008. On August 4, 2010, the probation office filed a petition to revoke his term of supervised release. The petition alleged that Barraza-Guzman violated three * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 10-41195 Document: 00511571645 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2011 No. 10-41195 conditions of his supervised release. At the revocation hearing, Barraza- Guzman pleaded true to violating the terms of his supervised release “by returning to the United States illegally.” The district court revoked BarrazaGuzman’s term of supervised release and sentenced him to 12 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 16-month term of imprisonment that was imposed following his illegal reentry conviction. Barraza-Guzman appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release. However, the sole issue raised on appeal is whether we should remand the matter to allow the district court to correct the written judgment — which reflects that Barraza-Guzman pleaded true to all three allegations in the petition to revoke — because it is does not correctly reflect the conduct admitted to by Barraza-Guzman at the revocation hearing. Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that after giving proper notice, the court may correct a clerical error at any time. Accordingly, the judgment is REMANDED for the sole purpose of correcting the error in the judgment. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36. As Barraza-Guzman does not otherwise challenge the revocation of his supervised release, the district court’s judgment is otherwise 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?