Case ID: f-appx_310/html/0651-01.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. Jesus GALLEGOS-PAZ, also known as Jesus Gallegos Paz, also known as Jesus Paz Gallegos, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-20897
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 18, 2009.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    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 86 to reflect that he was convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1826 of knowing and unlawful presence in the United States after deportation following conviction for an aggravated felony. Section 1326 is entitled “[rjeentry of removed aliens.” The judgment describes the offense as “[ijllegal re-entry.”

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.