Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Antonio SANCHEZ-LLANES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-21
Citations: 337 F. App'x 725
Docket Number: No. 08-50426
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Antonio SANCHEZ-LLANES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 337
Pages: 725–725

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Antonio SANCHEZ-LLANES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50426.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009 .
Filed July 21, 2009.
Matthew J. Gardner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Erica Kristine Zunkel, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jesus Antonio Sanchez-Llanes appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed on remand following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm but remand to correct the judgment.
Sanchez-Llanes contends that at his re-sentencing hearing, the district court violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(3)(B) by failing to resolve an objection to the Pre-Sentence Report. This contention is belied by the record.
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.