### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-30505 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee

v. JAMES A. WALKER, JR., Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:10-CR-143-1

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James A. Walker, Jr., appeals his guilty-plea conviction for receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). He contends: the indictment failed to charge him with an offense under § 2252(a)(2) because it did not allege specifically that he knew the visual depictions he received involved the use of a minor engagi ng in sexually-explicit conduct; and, as a result, the defect is jurisdictional and not waived by his guilty plea. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May4, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30505 Document: 00511844727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2012No. 11-30505

Walker states that our precedent would fo reclose this appeal; however, relying on cases from other circuits, he contends our court has erroneously interpreted United States v. Cotton , 535 U.S. 625, 630-31 (2002). Although our court has an unpublished opinion directly on point, our unpubli s he d o pinions are not binding precedent. See United States v. Templet , 431 F. App’x 270, 271 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); see, e.g., 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. “[W]hen a defendant enters a voluntary and unconditional guilty plea, the plea has the effect of waiving all nonj u ri s dictional defects in the prior proceedings”. U

n i t e d States v. Daughenbaugh , 549 F.3d 1010, 1012 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). In reaching that conclusion, our court noted that, under Cotto n , i n di c t ment defects do not deprive a court of jurisdiction. Id. ; see also United States v. Cothran , 302 F.3d 279, 283 (5th Cir. 2002).Walker does not contend th a t his guilty plea was unknowing or involuntary, and he admitted in th e signed factual basis that he knowingly searched for child pornography to download onto his computer. Thus, he waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment by pleading guil ty . Se e Daughenbaugh , 549 F.3d at 1012-13. The written judgment provides the offense o f c o nviction was receipt and possession of child pornography. Pursuant to his plea agreement, however, Walker pleaded guilty only to c o u nt o ne of the indictment, which charged him with receipt of child pornography. In accordance with that agreement, the district court dismissed count two, w h i c h charged Walker with possession of child pornography.

“Af ter giving any notice it considers appropriate, 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. Rule 36 is the appropriate vehicle for changes that do not substantively alter the orally announced sentence but instead corr e c t e rrors in the written
2 Case: 11-30505 Document: 00511844727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2012No. 11-30505

judgment. United States v. Spencer , 513 F.3d 490, 491-92 (5th Cir. 2008). Our court has noted sua sponte that it must remand for the purpose of c orrecting irregulariti e s c o nt a ined in the judgment. United States v. Johnson , 588 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir. 1979) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 36). Because the judgment does not properly reflect the crime of conviction, this matter is remanded for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to reflect that Walker was convicted of receipt of child pornography. AFFIRMED; LIMITED REMAND FOR CORRECTION OF JUDGMENT.

3 Case: 11-30505 Document: 00511844727 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2012