Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40295 Su m m ar yC al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. R A FA E L SA N T O S G A LA N

- C A S T R O , al so kn ow n a s R afaelH erna n dez-C astr o, al soknow n as R afaelH er nandez, al soknow n a s R afaelC as t r o, al soknow n as R afaelSant os G al an, al soknow n as V i c t orM anuelH er nandez, al soknow n as N athan H erna n dez, al so kn ow n as R afaelF erna n dez, D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 08- C R

- 749- 1
B e fo r e W IE N E R , D e M O S S , a n dS O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * R afaelSa n t os G al an - C astr o p l ead ed gu i l t y t o ill egal reentr y. T h e di st ri ct court sentenced h i m t o 57 m on t h s of i m pri so n m e n t , t h ree years of sup ervi sed rel ease, an d a $1 00 speci alassess m en t . Th e di st ri ctcourt , expressi n g concern t hatG al an- Cas t r o r e c e ive d i ne f fe c t ive a s s i s t anc e o f

c o uns e lat sentenc i ng, s ua s p o n te v a c a te dth e j u d g m e n t a g a in s t G a la n -C a s tr o , a p p o in te dth e F e d e r a l P u b lic United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April8, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40295 Document: 00511074216 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2010N o. 09- 40295

2 D e fe nde rt o r e pr e s e ntG al an- Cas t r o , a n d sett he c as e f o rr e s e nt e nc i ng. The di st ri ct co urti m pos ed the s am e s ent enc e o n re se nt enc i ng, w hi c h oc c urr ed 14 da ys a f t e rt he o r i gi nals e nt e nc e w as i m po s e d. T h e p a rti es b oth arg u e th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt l a ck ed au th ority to resentence G a la n -C astr o. Th i s c ou rtrevi ew s de nov o w h et h er a di st ri ctcourt had aut hor i t y t o r es ent enc e adef endantpurs uant t o Ru l e 3 5( a) of t he Feder al R u le s o f C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e . Un i t ed S t ate s v. R oss , 5 57 F
. 3d2 37, 2 39 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). “[A] d i stri ct cou rt’ s au th ority to correc t or m od i fy a s en ten ce is li m i tedto th o s e s p e c ific cir c u m s ta n c e s e n u m e r a te d b y C o n g r e s s in1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ([c ]).” Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ri dges , 1 1 6 F
. 3 d 1 1 1 0 , 1 1 1 2 (5th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ); se e als o Un i t ed S t ate s v. L opez , 26 F
. 3 d51 2 , 51 6 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 4 ) (dist r ic t co u rt au th orizedto m odi f y t erm of

i m pri sonm en tonl y i f one or m ore bases perm i t t ed by§ 358 2(c) i s a ppli c ab l e )
. The only s t at ut o r y pr e di c at e po t e nt i all y ap pl i c ab l e t o t he i ns t ant case i s § 358 2(c) ( 1) ( B ) , w h i ch au t h ori zes a sentenci n g court t o m odi f y a sentence pu rsuan tt o R u l e 35 of t h e F ederalR u l es of C ri m i n alP rocedure. A ss um i ng f

or t he sa ke of

ar gum entt hatt he am ended v er si on o f R ul e 3 5, w h ic h b e c a m e e ffe c t iv e w h il e th is a p p e a l w a s p e n d in g , m a d e t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s r e s e n te n c in gtim e ly , th e d is tr ic t co u r t n e v e r th e le s s o v e r s te p p e dits a u th o r ityin r es ent enc i ng G al an- C as t r o. An y s ua spo nt e se nt enc i ng m odif i c at i ons m ustbe m ad e “t o correc ta sen t en ce that result ed f rom ari t h m et i cal , t echn i cal , or ot h er cl ea r erro r. ” F ED . R. C RIM . P
. 35(a)
. A l t h ou gh t h e di st ri ctcourtex pressed c onc er ns ab outc ounse l ’ s per f or m ance ats ent enc i ng, G al an- C as t r o’ s i ni t i al s e nt e nc e di d notre s ul tf r o m cl e are r r o r . Gal an- Cas t r o ’ s a t t o r ne y’ s c o m m i t m e nt t o an argu m en tt h at c ou l d h ave l en gthen ed G al an - C astr o’ s s en t en ce di d n ot act u all y pr ej udi c e G al an- Cas t r o s i nc e t he di s t r i c tc o ur tde c l i ne d t o e nhan ce G a la n -C a s t r o ’s s e n t e n c e b a s e do n c o u n s e l’s a r g u m e n t . F u r t h e r , G a la n -C a s t r o ’s c o u n s e l o n r e s e n t e n c i n gfo u n dn o t h in gth a tw o u ldim p a c tG a la n -C a s t r o ’s Case: 09-40295 Document: 00511074216 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2010N o. 09- 40295

3 s e nt e nc e t hathad notpr e vi o us l y be e n ca l l e d t o t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a t t e nt i o n, a nd t h e di st ri ctcourti m posedt h e sam e sentence. B eca u se t h ere w a s n o “cl ea r erro r, ” th e dist ri ct cou rt l a ck ed au th ority to r e s e n te n c e G a la n -C a s tr o p u r s u a n t t o R u le 3 5 ( a ). R oss , 557 F. 3d at239- 43. Th er ef or e, w e VA C A TE and R E M A N D t hi s c as e f orr ei nst at em entof

t he o r i gi nal j u d gm en t. Case: 09-40295 Document: 00511074216 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/08/2010