Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Santiago JONGUITUD-OVIEDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-23
Citations: 594 F. App'x 250
Docket Number: No. 14-40575
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Santiago JONGUITUD-OVIEDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 250–251

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Santiago JONGUITUD-OVIEDO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40575
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 23, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
' Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Santiago Jonguitud-Oviedo pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully present in the United States following removal; he received a within-guidelines sentence of 46 months of imprisonment.
The parties agree that, because Jongui-tud-Oviedo was sentenced to deferred adjudication for a prior aggravated assault with a deadly weapon conviction, he was not convicted of an aggravated felony and, thus, the judgment improperly reflects that he was convicted and sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir.2009). Because Jonguitud-Ovie-do's offense was a § 1326(b)(1) violation rather than a § 1326(b)(2) violation, we REMAND for the limited purpose of reforming the judgment to reflect the proper statute of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. In all other respects, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.