Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis HERNANDEZ-ORTEGA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-13
Citations: 458 F. App'x 395
Docket Number: No. 11-40768
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis HERNANDEZ-ORTEGA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 458
Pages: 395–396

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis HERNANDEZ-ORTEGA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-40768
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 13, 2012.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Luis Hernandez-Ortega (Hernandez) appeals from the judgment imposed after the district court revoked the term of supervised release that he was serving in connection with his 2010 illegal reentry conviction. He concedes that he violated the conditions of his supervised release that prohibited him from committing an other crime and from illegally reentering the United States. He argues, however, that the written judgment includes a clerical error insofar as it indicates that he additionally violated the condition of his supervised release requiring that he report immediately to the nearest United States probation officer upon legally reentering the country. The Government concedes the error.
Our review of the record confirms that whether Hernandez had violated his supervised release conditions by failing to report was not at issue during the revocation hearing; indeed, the revocation was based upon a subsequent illegal reentry, not a legal one. Because the district court made no mention of such a violation at any point in the revocation hearing, including during its oral pronouncement of sentence, the oral pronouncement of sentence conflicts with the written judgment, and the case is REMANDED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE of allowing the district court to conform its written judgment to its oral pronouncement of sentence. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001).
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.