Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40679/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40679-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan De Dios Torres-Bazaldua
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40679

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN DE DIOS TORRES-BAZALDUA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-374

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan De Dios Torres-Bazaldua appeals from the sentence imposed in 

connection with his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. TorresBazaldua argues that the written judgment contains a clerical error because it 

does not reflect that the $100 special assessment was remitted. He contends 

that this court should remand his case pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40679 Document: 00512964130 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2015
No. 14-40679

Procedure 36 so that the district court can correct the written judgment to 

reflect the fact that it orally remitted the assessment. 

Rule 36 provides that “the court may at any time correct a clerical error 

in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the 

record arising from oversight or omission.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 36. A clerical 

error occurs when the court intends to do one thing but through clerical 

mistake or oversight does another. United States v. Buendia-Rangel, 553 F.3d 

378, 379 (5th Cir. 2008).

The record shows that the district court did not remit the assessment. 

Instead, the court explained to Torres-Bazaldua that he could get relief 

administratively if he could not afford to pay it. Moreover, the district court 

lacks the authority to sua sponte remit the assessment. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3573(1); see also United States v. Nguyen, 916 F.2d 1016, 1020 (5th Cir. 1990) 

(stating that the assessment is mandatory and that the district court cannot 

decline to impose the special assessment under § 3013 based on its finding that 

a defendant is indigent). Torres-Bazaldua fails to show that the written 

judgment has a clerical error. See Buendia-Rangel, 553 F.3d at 379. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-40679 Document: 00512964130 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2015