The H ono rabl e L eon Jo rdan , S eni or U ni ted Sta tes Dist r ict Ju dge for theE aste rn D is trict * of T enn ess ee, si ttin g by de si gnati on. 

### NOT RECOM M ENDED FOR FULL- TEXT PUBLI CATI ON

Fi l e Nam e: 08a0120n. 06 Fi l ed: Febr uary

27, 2008 No. 06- 2174 UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F O RT H E S IXT H C IR C U IT
UN ITED STAT ES OF AM ER ICA, ) ) Pl ai nt i f f
-Appel l ee, ) ) v. ) ) ARM ANDO CARBALLO- ) ARGUELLES ) ) D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF M I CHI GAN

B e fo re : BOGGS , C h ie f C irc u it J u d g e , KE NN ED Y , Ci rcui tJudge, and J O R D AN , Di st r i ctJudge * 

### L E O N J O R D AN , D is trict J u d g e . T hi s i s an appeal f r om a s ent ence i m posed fol l owi ng t he defendant ’ s p l ea of gui l t y t o i l l egal l y r eent er i ng t he U ni t ed S t at es aft er d e p o rt a ti o n . T h e d e fen d a n t a rg u e s (1) tha t the ca l c u l a ti o n o f h i s crim i n a l h i s tory p o in ts w a s i n c o rre c t; (2 ) th a t h e s h o u ld h a ve b e e n g ive n a “fa s t-tra c k ” d e p a rtu re to
a vo id s e n te n c in g d isp a rity; (3 ) th a t h is p rio r fe lo n y s h o u ld n o t h a ve b e e n u s e d to enhanc e hi s s ent ence; and ( 4) t h att he j udgm enti ncor r ect l y st at ed t he t er m of

### 2

superv i sed r el ease i m posed by t he court

. For t he fol l owi ng r eason s, we af f i r m t he d e fe n d a n t’ s s e n te n c e , b u t re m a n d fo r a c o rre c ti o n o f t h e w ritt e n j u d g m e n t. Back gr ound T he defendantAr m ando Car bal l o- Ar guel l es pl ed gui l t y t o an i nfor m at i on char gi ng hi m wi t h one countof unl awf ul r eent ry aft erdeport at i on fol l o w i n g a conv i ct i on foran a ggr av at ed fel ony , a v i ol at i on of 8 U

. S. C

. § 1326. U si ng t he 2005 edi t i on of

t he Sent enci ng G ui del i n e s, t h e pr obat i on of f i cerdet er m i ned t hatt he defendant ’ s a dj ust ed bas e of fense l ev el was 2 1 bas ed on t he defendant ’ s p r i or conv i ct i on fora c r i m e of v i ol ence ( ass aul twi t h i nt entt o m ur der )

. W i t h a c r i m i nal h isto ry c a te g o ry o f V I, h is g u id e li n e ra n g e w a s 7 7 to 9 6 m o n th s . T he defendantf i l ed obj ect i ons t o t he pr e sent ence r eportwi t h t he pr obat i on of f i ce, one o f

whi ch was a cl ai m t hathe s houl d nothav e been ass ess ed t hr ee cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s fora c onv i ct i on forM al i ci ous D est r uct i on of Pr opert y ( ¶ 37 of th e p re s e n te n c e re p o rt ). T h e p ro b a tio n o ffic e r in v e s tig a te d th e d e fe n d a n t’s c la im
conc er ni ng t hi s c onv i ct i on and, r el y i ng on a l et t erf r om t he Mi chi gan Depart m entof C o r r e c t i o n s , d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h i s c o n v i c t i o n wa s n o t t o o o l d t o b e c o unt ed. The defendan ta p p a r e n t l y a b a n d o n e d t h i s a r g u m e n tu n t i l a p p e a l a s t h e r e i s n o f u rt her
r efer ence t o t he i ss ue i n t he defendant ’ s sent enci ng m em or andum ort he s ent enci ng tra n s c rip t. I n hi s se n t enci ng m em or andum and m ot i on fora de part ur e f r om t he sent enci ng gui del i nes f i l ed befor e sent enci ng, howeve r , t he defendantar gued t hat

### 3

usi ng hi s c onv i ct i on fora c r i m e of v i ol ence t o i ncr ease bot h hi s b ase of fense l ev el and hi s c r i m i nal hi st ory was “ doubl e c ount i ng” ; t h a t he s houl d be gi v en t he adv ant age of

t he “ fastt r ack ” pr ogr am u se d i n di st r i ct s wher e t her e ar e num er ous i l l egal r eent ry ca ses; and t hatas a no n- ci t i zen he woul d be subj ect ed t o har sher p ris o n c o n d itio n s th a n o th e r p ris o n e rs , a fa c t th e c o u r ts h o u ld c o n s id e r a s a b a s is fordepart ur e. Atse nt enci ng, t he di st r i ct court gr ant ed a one- l ev el r educt i on i n t he defendant ’ s sent ence and sent enced t he defendantt o 70 m ont hs i n pr i son fol l owed by a t w o -y e a rt er m of su perv i sed r el ease. The di st r i ctco urt ’ s s ent enci ng opi ni on e x p l a i n e d t h e r e a s o n fo rg r a n t i n g a s ma l l r e d u c t i o n – d o u b l e c o u n t i n g o f t h e c r i me of v i ol ence – and forr ej ect i ng t he defendant ’ s fast -t rack ar gum ent

. The wr i t t en j udgm enti ncor r ect l y st at ed t he defendant ’ s t er m of su perv i sed r el ease as t hr ee y ears. An a ly s is 1. Cr i m i nal H i st ory C om put at i on O n a p p e a l , the d e fen d a n t a tt e m p ts t o re vi ve h i s a rg u m e n t tha t h i s F e b ru a ry 1986 c onv i ct i on for m al i ci ous dest r uct i on of pr opert y i s t i m e bar r ed and shoul d not countt owar ds hi s c r i m i nal hi st ory scor e. W e f i nd t hatt he defendanthas forfei t ed t he iss u e o n a p p e a l. S e e U n ite dS ta te s v. Ko e b e rle in , 1 6 1 F .3d 9 4 6 , 9 4 9 n . 2 (6th C i r. 1998) ( not i ng t hata de fendantforfei t s a se nt enci ng i ss ue i f i ti s n otr ai sed befor e t he
s e n te n c in g ju d g e ). T h u s , a s c o n c e d e d b y th e d e fe n d a n t, o u r r e v ie w w ill b e fo r p la in
e rro r. I d. at949. “ T o es t abl i sh pl ai n er r or , a defendantm ustshow ( 1) t hatan e r r or

### 4

o c c u rre d i n th e d istric t c o u rt; (2 ) th e e rro r w a s p la in , i

. e. , obv i ous orcl ear ; ( 3) t hatt he
er r oraf fect ed d efend ant ’ s subst ant i al r i ght s; an d (4 ) th att hi s adver se i m pact
ser i ousl y af

fect ed t he fai r ness , i nt egri t y, o rpubl i c r eput at i on of t he j udi ci al p ro c e e d i n g s .” U nited States v. Abboud , 4 3 8 F. 3 d 5 5 4 , 5 8 3 ( 6 t h Ci r . 2 0 06)

. O ur re vi e w o f the i s s u e l e a d s u s t o co n c l u d e t h a t the re w a s n o p l a i n e rror. U n d e r th e s e n te n c in g g u id e li n e s , a d e fe n d a n t is a s s e s s e d th r e e p o in ts t owar ds hi s c r i m i n a l h i s t o ry sc or e foreac h pr i orse nt ence of i m pr i sonm entex ceedi ng o n e ye a r. U S S G § 4 A 1 .1 (a ). T h e g u id e li n e s fu rth e r p ro vid e , i n re le va n t p a rt: A n y p rio r s e n te n c e o f im p ris o n m e n t e xc e e d in g o n e ye a r a n d o n e m o n th th a t w a s im p o s e d w ith in fifte e n ye a rs o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s com m encem entof

t he i nst antof

fense i s c ount ed. Al so countanypr i or sent ence of

i m p r i sonm entex ceedi ng one y earand one m ont h, whenev eri m posed , t hatr esul t ed i n t he defendantbei ng i ncar cerate d dur i ng anypartof

su ch f i ft een- y earper i od. U SS G § 4 A1

. 2 ( e ) ( 1 )

. Th e p a rt i e s a g r e e t h a tt h e c o n d u c tr e s u l t i n g i n t h e i nst ant
conv i ct i on oc cur r ed on August15, 2006. Thus, anyse nt enc e o f i m pr i sonm entfor m o re t h a n o n e ye a r an d o n e m o n th t h e d e fen d a n t re c e i ve d a n d /or c o m p l e ted b e fore A u g u s t 1 5 , 1 9 9 1 , s h o u ld n o t b e c o u n te d a s p a rt o f h is c rim in a l h isto ry s c o re . T h e d e fe n d a n t w a s s e n te n c e d b y a M ich ig a n c o u rt o n F e b ru a ry 2 8 , 1 9 8 6 , t o one- t o- foury ear s i n pr i son form al i ci ous dest r uct i on of pr opert y . H e w as par ol ed on O ct ober20, 1986 and deport ed t o Mexi co. He v i ol at ed hi s p ar ol e a y earl at erand
w a s re tu rn e d to p ris o n . H e w a s p a ro le d a g a in o n J u ly 1 , 1 9 8 8 , a n d o n c e a g a in d e p o rt e d to M e x ic o . W h ile o n p a ro le th e d e fe n d a n t c o m m it t e d a n o th e r o ffe n s e inT he M i chi gan st at ut e up on whi ch t he p r obat i on o ff i cerr el i ed st at es, i n r el ev antpart , as f ol l ows: 1 I f a pri s on er othe r t ha n a pri s on er s ub j ec tt o d i s c i pl i na ryt i m e i s se nten c ed for co ns ec uti ve t er m s, whet herr ecei v ed a tt he sa m e t i m e or at anyt i m e du r i ng t he l i f e of t he o r i gi nal sent ence, t he par ol e boar d has j ur i sdi ct i on ov ert he p r i sonerforpur poses ofpar ol e when t he pr i sonerhas serv ed t he to t al t i m e of t he a dded m i ni m um t er m s, l ess t he g ood t i m e an d di sci pl i nar y cr edi t s al l owed byst at ut e. T he m axi m um t er m s of t he se nt ences shal l be added to c o m p u te th e n e w m a x im u m te r m u n d e rt h is s u b s e c tio n , a n d d is c h a r g e s h a ll b e is s u e d o n ly aft er t he t otal of t he m ax i m um s en t en c es ha s be en se rved l es s go od t i m e a nd di s c i pl i na ry cr edi t s, unl ess t he p r i soneri s par ol ed a nd d i schar ged upon s ati s fact or ycom pl et i on o ft he par ol e. M i ch. C om p. Laws § 791

. 234( 3)

. T he M i chi gan D epart m ent of C or r ect i ons i nt er pr et s t hi s st at ut e t o m ean t hat a pr i soneri s not el i gi bl e f ordi schar ge u nt i l t he co m bi ned, m i ni m um sent ences ( t he p ar ol ed a nd n ew sent ence) h a v e b e e n s e rv e d

. 

### 5 M ich ig a n , a s s a u ltw it h i n te n t t o m u rd e r , fo rw h ich h e w a s s e n te n c e d to e ig h t t o twent y y ear s i n pr i son. He was f i nal l y par ol ed f r om t hi s o f fense on Decem ber12, 2 0 0 5

. T he pr obat i on of f i ceri nv est i gat ed t he defendant ’ s o bj ect i on t o c ount i ng t he 1986 c onv i ct i on and, upon r ecei ptof a l et t erf r om t he Mi chi g a n D epart m entof C or r ect i ons i n t e rpret i ng a M i chi gan s t at ut e c oncer ni ng el i gi bi l i t y forpar ol e, 1
conc l uded t hatt he 1986 co nv i ct i on wa s s t i l l ac t i v e i n August1991 becau se i twas added to t he of

fense com m i t t ed whi l e on par ol e. No change was m ade t o t he p re s e n te n c e re p o rt. I n t hi s a ppeal t he defendantargu es t hatt he one- t o- foury earse nt ence he
r ecei v ed i n 1986 had t o hav e ex pi r ed by 1 9 9 0 , b e for e t he f i ft een- y earco unt i ng per i od bega n, so he s houl d nothav e had t hr ee cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s a dded fort hat
conv i ct i on. Ator al ar gum entfort he f i r stt i m e, t he defendantar gued t hatanot her

### 6

M i chi gan s t at ut e, M i ch. C om p. Laws § 76 8

. 7 a , p rov i des fort he ex pi r at i on of t he earl i erof

conse cut i v e sen t ence s. Se ct i on 7 68. 7a(2) st at es: If a p e rso n i s c o n vi c ted a n d se n ten c e d t o a t e rm o f i m p ri s o n m e n t for a fel ony co m m i t t ed whi l e t he per son was on par ol e f r om a sent ence for a pr ev i ous of

fense, t he t er m of

i m pr i sonm enti m posed fort he l at er of fense shal l begi n t o r un att he ex pi r at i on of t he r em ai ni ng port i on of t he t er m of

i m pr i sonm enti m posed fort he pr ev i ous of fense. M ich . C o m p . L a w s § 7 6 8 .7 a (2 ). T h e d e fe n d a n t a rg u e d th a t t h e M ich ig a n c o u rts hav e di st i ngui shed between t he t er m “ di sc har ge” as us e d i n § 7 91. 234 and “e xp ira ti o n ” a s u s e d i n § 7 6 8 .7 a . See, e. g. , L ic kfeldt v . D e p ’ t o f C o rr. , 636 N

. W

. 2d 2 7 2 (M i c h

. 2 0 0 1 ) ( d e term i n i n g t h a t e a rl i e r co n s e c u ti ve se n ten c e s “e xp i re a s t h e y a re c o m p le te d , e ffe c ti ve ly m o vin g th e s trin g a lo n g fro m s e n te n c e to s e n te n c e ”). I n oppos i t i on, t he gov er nm entco nt ends t hatt he t er m i nat i on dat e of t he pr i or s e n te n c e is c o m b in e d w ith a s u b s e q u e n t , c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e a s s e t o u t in § 791. 234. T he defendant ’ s c onv i ct i on for ass aul t wi t h i nt entt o m ur derwas or der ed t o be serv ed cons ecut i v el y t o t he 1986 conv i ct i on becau se he was on par ol e when t h e as sa u l toc cu rre d

. See M i ch. C om p. Laws § 768. 7a. Si nce he was not di sc har ged f r om t hese com bi ned sent ences unt i l 2005, t he gov er nm entsu bm i t s t hat t he defendantco r r ect l y r ecei v ed t hr ee c r i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s fort he 1986 co nv i ct i on. H owev er , none of

t hese ar gum ent s wer e m ade befor e t he di st r i ctco urt

. Ev en i f i t c o u l d b e sa i d t h a t a s s e s s i n g the thre e p o i n ts for the 1 9 8 6 co n vi c ti o n w a s e rror, t her e was no “ obv i ous orcl ear ” er r or . The uncert ai nt y of t he r ecor d i s r eason e n o u g h t o r e a c h t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . F o re x a mp l e , t h e c o n f u s i n g u s e o f t h e t e r ms

### 7

“ di sc harge, ” “t e rm i n a t i o n , ” a n d “ e xpi rat i o n ” i n t h e M i chi gan s t at ut es, t he i nt er pr et at i on of t hese t er m s by t he Mi chi gan Depart m entof C or r ect i ons and t he c ourt s, and t he l ack of i nfor m at i on as t o whet hert he t i m e t he defendantwas deport ed woul d c ount t owar ds hi s s ent ence, l ead us t o conc l ude t hat t her e was no pl ai n er r or . T hi s i ss ue is w it h o u t m e rit. 2

. U n w a rra n te d S e n te n c in g D isp a rity O u r r e v ie w o f w h e th e r th e d is tr ic t c o u rtp ro p e rly d e n ie d t h e d e fe n d a n t’s
s e n te n c in g d isp a rity a rg u m e n t i s fo r re a s o n a b le n e s s . S ee U nited S tates v. H er nandez- Fier

r os , 4 5 3 F. 3d 309, 312 ( 6t h C i r . 2006)

. I n or dert o det er m i ne whet hera pa rt i cul arse n t e n ce i s r eason abl e, t hi s c ourtco nsi der s, am ong ot her thing s , the d i s tr i c t c o u rt ’ s e xp l a n a ti o n fo r th e s e n ten c e im p o s e d in li g h t o f the fa c tors
e n u m e ra te d i n 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). I d. T h e d e fen d a n t a rg u e s th a t th e d istri c t c o u rte rred i n refu s i n g t o co n s i d e r a sent ence t hatwoul d be cons i st entwi t h defendant s s ent enced i n di st r i ct s w i t h t he fast - t r ack pr ogr am . U ndert he pr ogr am , av ai l abl e onl y i n som e ar eas of t he Uni t ed St at es, a de fendantagr ees t o pl ead gui l t y qui ck l y wi t houtco nt est i ng r em ov al f r om the U n i ted S tate s i n e xc h a n g e for a m o ti o n fr o m the g o ve rn m e n t for u p to a fo u rle ve l re d u c ti o n i n h is o r h e r b a s e o ffe n s e l e ve l. S e e id

. a t 3 1 0 n .2

. W e f i nd t hatt he di st r i ctco urt cor r ect l y hel d t hatfast - t r ack pr ogr am does not
re s u lti n a n u n w a rra n te d d isp a rity u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ). A s n o te d b y th e d istric t c o u rt, t o gi v e a d efendanta s ent enci ng r educt i on on t hi s b asi s woul d gi v e hi m a be nef i tfor

### 8

w h ic h th e g o v e rn m e n t h a s n o t b a rg a in e d . F u rt h e r, th e d e fe n d a n t is n o t s im ila rly si t uat ed t o fast - t r ack defendant s becaus e he has notr el i nqui shed r i ght s i n ex chang e for the g o ve rn m e n t’ s m o ti o n . T h u s , the d e p a rt u re s o ffe re d i n so m e d i s tr i c ts a re e xp l a i n e d b y th e n e e d fo r effec ti ve f u n c ti o n i n g o f a p a rt i c u l a r distri c t c o u rta n d t h e re is n o d isp a ra te tre a tm e n t o f in d iv id u a l d e fe n d a n ts

. See id. a t 3 1 3 -1 4

. F i n a l l y, sent enci ng di spar i t y i s onl y one fact orfort he di st r i ctco urtt o c onsi deri n ar r i v i ng at
a s e n te n c e th a t i s s u ffi c ie n t, b u t n o t g re a te r th a n n e c e s s a ry. See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ); see also H er nandez- Fier

r os , 4 5 3 F .3 d a t 3 1 3

. I n t hi s cas e, w e f i nd t hatt he di st r i ctcourtadequat el y co nsi der ed and r ej ect ed t he defendant ’ s a r gum ent for a r educt i on i n hi s s ent ence becau se fast - t r ack i ng was n o t a va il a b le i n M ich ig a n . 3. Si x t h Am endm entVi ol at i on O r di nar i l y , a c onst i t ut i onal ch al l enge t o a defendant ’ s sent ence i s r ev i ewed de
novo i f t h e d e fe n d a n t p re s e rve s h is c la im fo r a p p e ll a te re vie w . See U nited States v. C o p e land , 3 2 1 F

. 3 d 5 8 2 , 6 0 1 (6t h C i r. 2 0 0 3 ). H o w e ver, t h e d e fe n d a n t fa i le d to
m a k e a n o b je c tio n to th is a lle g e d c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt , s o h is
c h a ll e n g e i s re vie w e d fo r p la in e rro r. I d. 

### In this app ea l, the de fenda nt argu es that the re was no jury de term ination (or, p re s u ma b l y , h e d i d n o ta d mi t )t h a th i s p r i o r a g g ra v a t e d fe l o n y q u a l i fi e d a s a c r i me of v i ol ence, so t he a d d itio n al 16 l ev el s shoul d nothav e been added to hi s base of fense lev el

. Sect i on 1326( b) ( 2)of Ti t l e 8 of

t he Uni t ed St at es Code makes itan

### 9

of fense f or an al i en t o be f

ound i n t he U n ite d S ta tes af t er hav i ng been rem ov ed subsequentt o a conv i ct i on f or an aggrav at ed fel ony . T h e s ent enci ng gui del i nes prov i de f or a 16- l ev el i ncrease i f t he def endant ’ s pr i or

fel ony was a “c rim e of
v iolenc e.” US SG § 2 L1 .2(b)( 1)(A ). A c ri m e o f v iolenc e is d efined a s “m urde r, m an slau gh ter, kidn ap ping , ag grav ated ass au lt

. . . or an y offense un de r fed eral, st at e, or l ocal l aw t hat has as an el em ent t he use, att em pt ed use, or t hreat ened use o f p h ys ic a l fo rc e a g a in s t th e p e rs o n o f a n o t h e r . ” U S S G § 2 L 1 .2 , c o m m e n t. (n .1 (B )(iii)). Att he t i m e of

hi s gui l ty

pl ea, t he def

endantadm i tt e d t hathe had been prev i ousl y

conv i ct ed of

an aggrav at ed fel ony , w hi ch resul t ed i n at l east an 8- l ev el in c re a s e in h is b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l u n d e r th e g u id e lin e s . See USSG § 2L1. 2( b) ( 1) ( C)

. The probat i on of fi cer f ound and t he court agreed, howev er , t hat t he def endant ’ s pr i or

aggrav at ed fel ony , assaul t w i t h t he i nt entt o m urder , m ett he d e fin itio n o f a c rim e o f v io le n c e a s s e t o u t a b o v e . T h u s , 1 6 le v e ls we re a d d e d to t he def endant ’ s base of

fense l ev el of

8. M uc h o f t he de fenda nt’s brief conc erns the via b il it y of t he ho lding in Al menda re z-T

o rres v. United St

ates , 5 2 3 U

. S

. 2 2 4 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , w h e re t h e S u p re me Courthel d t hat“ Congress i nt ended t o setf ort h a sent enc in g fact or [ aggrav at ed fel ony] i n subsect i on ( b) ( 2) and not a separat e cr i m i nal of fense, ” and i tneed notbe p ro v e n b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Id. at235. W e hav e speci fi cal l y f ound t hat Al mendar ez- Tor r esrem ai ns good l aw

unt i l t he Suprem e Courtsays ot her w i se.

### 10

Un ited States v. Hil

l , 440 F. 3d 292, 299 n. 3 ( 6t h Ci r . 2 006)

. As not ed abov e, howev er , t he def

endantadm i tt ed t hathe had a conv i ct io n fo r a pr i or aggrav at ed felo n y , s o hi s argum enti s real l y w het her t he di st r i ctcourter red i n appl y i ng t he g u id e lin e d e fin itio n o f “c rim e o f v io le n c e ” to h is a d m itte d a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y . I n t he Si xt h Ci rcui t , di st r i ctcourt s m ay engage i n j udi ci al fact fi ndi ng i n order t o ar r i v e at a re a s o n a b le sent ence as l ong as t he gui del i nes are t reat ed as a d v is o ry . Unite d St

ates v. Geer

ken , 506 F. 3d 461, 466 ( 6t h Ci r . 2007)

. W e fi nd t hat t here was no er ror , pl ai n or ot her w i se, i n i dent i f

y i ng t he defend a n t’s pr i or ag grav ated felony as a cri m e o f v iolenc e. “Ass au ltw it h Intent to M urde r” is clea rl y a cr i m e of v i ol ence as defi ned by t he gui del i nes, and t he di st r i ctcourt ’ s adopt i on of th e p ro b a tio n o ffic e r’s re c o m m e n d a tio n wa s re a s o n a b le

. 4. Judgm entEr ror Att he t i m e of

sent enci ng, t he di st r i ctcourt sent enced the defendantt o a twoy ear t er m of

super v i sed rel ease, butt he w r i tt en j udg m e ntst at es t hatt he defendant ’ s t er m of

super v i sed rel ease is three y ears. I n i t s br i ef , t he gov er nm ent co nc ed es that the judg m en t sho uld b e c orrec te d b ec au se w he re there are c o n flictin g s e n te n c in g p ro n o u n c e m e n ts , th e o ra l s e n te n c e g e n e ra llyc o n tro ls

. See Un ited States v. Cofield , 233 F. 3d 405, 407 ( 6t h Ci r . 2000)

. Theref ore, t hi s cr i m i nal case w i l l be rem anded t o t he di st r i ctcourtf or a cor rect i on of

t he w r i tt en j udgm ent to re fle ct th e o ra l s e n te n c e .

### 11

W e A FF I RM t he def

endant ’ s sent ence, butrem and f or a cor rect i on of

t he
w ritte n ju d g m e n t.