Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40710/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40710-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Atriano-Cuahutle
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40710

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO ATRIANO-CUAHUTLE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-181

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Atriano-Cuahutle pleaded guilty to an indictment charging a 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 and was sentenced within the guidelines range to 

21 months of imprisonment. He now appeals, arguing that this court should 

vacate and remand for correction of the clerical errors in the judgment and the 

presentence report (PSR). Atriano-Cuahutle contends that he was charged 

* 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

April 14, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40710 Document: 00513003879 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-40710

with and pleaded guilty to resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, and 

interfering with a federal officer and not to assaulting a federal officer, as the 

offense is described in the judgment and the PSR. He asserts that assault of a 

federal officer is a separate and distinct offense from the others with which he 

was charged, despite the fact that the offenses are proscribed by the same 

statute and punished in the same manner. 

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).

Regardless of whether the § 111 offense of assault is separate and 

distinct from the § 111 offense of resisting, opposing, intimidating, and 

impeding, the record shows that the district court’s description of the offense

is not a clerical error. The court did not err in recitation and did not do 

something unintended through mistake or oversight. See Buendia-Rangel, 553 

F.3d at 379. The district court intended for the PSR and the judgment to 

describe the offense of conviction as an assault. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-40710 Document: 00513003879 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2015