Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Ivan MEDINA-VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-24
Citations: 608 F. App'x 255
Docket Number: No. 14-40909
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Ivan MEDINA-VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 255–255

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Ivan MEDINA-VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40909
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 24, 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, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Ivan Medina-Villarreal pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully present in the United States following removal. He was sentenced at the top of the recommended sentencing guidelines range to 71 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. The parties agree that the judgment of conviction, which states that Medina-Villarreal's prior removal was subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, 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 Medina-Villarreal'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, § 1326(b)(1), and to state that his .prior removal was subsequent to a felony 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.