Case ID: f-appx_491/html/0490-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joe SANTANA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-41296
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 7, 2012.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

As his sole issue on appeal, Joe Santana argues that his case should be remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the written judgment to reflect that he was convicted of a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 or more kilograms of marijuana, as charged in Count 1 of the indictment, rather than for “[possession with intent to distribute, approximately 1430.51kilograms of marijuana.” The Government concurs that the error involved is clearly a clerical one which should be corrected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The Government also notes that the written judgment does not reflect that Count 2 of the indictment was dismissed upon its motion. We have noted sua sponte that this court must remand for the purpose of correcting irregularities contained in the judgment. United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir.1979).

The case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of the entry of a corrected judgment reflecting that Santana was convicted of a conspiracy offense and that Count 2 was dismissed on the Government’s motion. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.