Case ID: f-appx_508/html/0352-01.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. Javier HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-41377
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 23, 2013.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James Scott Sullivan, Esq., Law Offices of J. Scott Sullivan, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Javier Hernandez appeals from his conviction of possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He contends on appeal that the district court improperly and without jurisdiction ordered him removed from the United States as part of his sentence. This argument was not raised in the district court. Thus, review is for plain error. United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir.2007). He further argues that the written judgment, which does not contain a removal order, conflicts with the oral imposition of sen-fence and that the case should be remanded for resentencing. Such arguments are reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir.2006).

The district court did not order Hernandez removed from the United States as part of his sentence. The only mention of deportation while the sentence was being imposed was that while on supervised release, Hernandez would be subject to the standard conditions of the Southern District “to include all statutory requirements without supervision if he is deported.” Only after imposing sentence and advising Hernandez of his appellate rights did the district court ask whether Hernandez knew when he pleaded guilty that he would be deported. Hernandez has not shown error, plain or otherwise.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.