Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alvaro PARAMO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-06
Citations: 466 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: No. 11-40430
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alvaro PARAMO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 335–336

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alvaro PARAMO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-40430
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 6, 2012.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, 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 Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HAYNES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alvaro Paramo pleaded guilty to attempting to smuggle goods from the United States and making false statements. The district court sentenced Paramo to 60 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. In his sole issue for appeal, Paramo contends that there is a clerical error in the judgment of the offense of conviction that should be remanded for correction.
The judgment states that Paramo was convicted of smuggling goods from the United States and making false statements. Attempt offenses are distinct from actual offenses, even where both offenses appear in the same statute. See United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529, 531 (5th Cir.2000).
The case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the original judgment to reflect that Para-mo was convicted of attempting to smuggle goods from the United States and making false statements. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED in all other respects.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.