* District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

** 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40879

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAYMUNDO BUENDIA-RANGEL

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:07-CR-667-1

Before GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and MINALDI, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM:**

In this criminal appeal we are asked to remand the district court’s

judgment for correction of a clerical error. Finding no such error, we AFFIRM

the judgment. 

Defendant Raymundo Buendia-Rangel (“Defendant”) was indicted for

violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 as an alien who had previously been removed from the

United States and who was subsequently found in the United States withoutthe

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 9, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40879

2

consent of the Attorney General or Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security. Defendant pled guilty to the charge. The district court entered a

judgment, which lists the “nature of the offense” as “[r]e-entry of a deported

alien,” and imposed a sentence of 45 months imprisonment. 

Defendant timely appealed but contests neither his conviction nor

sentence; he appeals solely to request that this court exercise its power under

Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 to correct an alleged clerical error in the judgment.

Specifically, Defendant contends that the judgment misidentifies the “nature of

the offense” as “[r]e-entry of a deported alien” when it should state that

Defendant was convicted of being “found unlawfully in the United States

following removal or deportation.” Defendant bases this argument on an

assertion that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 contains three separate offenses: 1) attempted

illegal reentry, 2) illegal reentry, and 3) being found illegally in the United

States. Defendant contends that he pled guilty to the third offense, viz., being

found illegally in the United States, whereas the judgment’s “nature of the

offense” entry lists the second offense, viz., illegal reentry.

Rule 36 authorizes us to correct only clerical errors, which exist when “the

court intended one thing but by merely clerical mistake or oversight did

another.” See United States v. Steen, 55 F.3d 1022, 1025-26 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995).

We find no clerical error in the judgment below because the “nature of the

offense” entry appears to be an intentional restatement of the title of § 1326

rather than a mistake.

Section 1326 is entitled “[r]eentry of removed aliens” and reads in relevant

part:

[A]ny alien who--

(1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or

has departed the United States while an order of exclusion,

deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter

(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United

States . . .
No. 07-40879

1 As Defendant observes, we have noted that attempted reentry under § 1326

constitutes an offense distinct from either reentry or being found in the United States under

§ 1326, see United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529, 531 (5th Cir. 2000); United States

v. Martinez-Espinoza, 299 F.3d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 2002); but such cases, which focus on the

distinction between actual entry and attempted entry, are inapposite here. In this case, the

differences between actual and attempted entry are not at issue. Rather, Defendant pled to

being found unlawfully in the United States and we are called to determine whether the

judgment contained a clerical error in referring to that offense by its general statutory title.

3

shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

8 U.S.C. § 1326.

In the district court’s judgment, the “nature of the offense” description,

“[r]e-entry of a deported alien,” so closely tracks the § 1326 title, “[r]eentry 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 the 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

similar 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) (“[A]n alien who

has previously been denied entry or been deported or removed commits the

offense of illegal reentry when the alien thereafter “enters, attempts to enter, or

is at any time found in,the United States . . . .” (emphasis added)); United States

v. Vargas-Garcia, 434 F.3d 345, 349 (5th Cir. 2005) (“The illegal reentry statute

defines Vargas-Garcia’s offense thusly: a removed alien commits illegal reentry

when he ‘enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States

. . . .’” (emphasis added)). Thus, it appears that the district court’s judgment

uses the term “re-entry of a deported alien” intentionally in reference to § 1326

generally, and such is not a clerical error.1 Accordingly, we AFFIRM.