Case ID: f-appx_302/html/0267-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      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. Felix Fernando VARGAS-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-41265
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 10, 2008.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Felix Fernando Vargas-Herrera (Vargas) appeals from his guilty plea conviction of one count of illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. He requests only that this court exercise its power pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 36 to correct an alleged clerical error in the judgment. Specifically, he alleges that the judgment of the district court misidentifies the nature of his offense as “[r]e-entry of a deported alien” when it should state that he was illegally found in the United States.

Rule 36 authorizes this court to correct only 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 1022,1025-26 n. 3 (5th Cir.1995) (quoting Dura-Wood Treating Co. v. Century Forest Indus., Inc., 694 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir.1982)). In the district court’s judgment, the “Nature of Offense” description, “[r]e-entry of a deported alien,” so closely tracks the § 1326 title, “[rjeentry of removed aliens,” that it bears no indicia of the district court having made a mistake or oversight. Rather, it appears that the district court intended the “Nature of Offense” to refer generally to the title of § 1326.

Such a method of reference to § 1326 is not uncommon. In fact, this court has often used the term “illegal reentry” in reference to violations of § 1326 generally. See, e.g., United States v. Gunera, 479 F.3d 373, 376 (5th Cir.2007). It appears that the district court’s judgment uses the term “[rje-entry of a deported alien” intentionally in reference to § 1326 generally; therefore, there is no clerical error. Accordingly, 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.