Case ID: f-appx_558/html/0738-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose VALLEJO, a.k.a. Creeper, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 13-50038, 13-50069.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2014.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Justin Randall Rhoades, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Max Shiner, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Cristina Gabrielidis, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Jose Vallejo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He also appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to correct the judgment and commitment order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vallejo contends that the judgment and commitment order, which imposed a 57-month term of imprisonment, conflicts with the oral pronouncement of the sentence. Contrary to Vallejo’s contention, the record reflects that the district court orally imposed a 57-month sentence. Moreover, even if the oral pronouncement were ambiguous, the district court did not err in denying Vallejo’s motion to correct the judgment. See United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359, 1368 (9th Cir.1994) (“[T]he written sentence will control where there are ambiguities in the oral pronouncement of the sentence, and the writing resolves the ambiguity.”), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Jackson, 167 F.3d 1280 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.