Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Erik SALAZAR-SALAZAR, a/k/a Jaime Montepeque; Moisés Salazar-Canastu; Moises Muy Canastu; Erik Salazar; Moises Canastu; and Erik Salazar-Salas, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-17
Citations: 168 F. App'x 753
Docket Number: Nos. 05-50313, 05-50315
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Erik SALAZAR-SALAZAR, a/k/a Jaime Montepeque; Moisés Salazar-Canastu; Moises Muy Canastu; Erik Salazar; Moises Canastu; and Erik Salazar-Salas, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 753–754

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Erik SALAZAR-SALAZAR, a/k/a Jaime Montepeque; Moisés Salazar-Canastu; Moises Muy Canastu; Erik Salazar; Moises Canastu; and Erik Salazar-Salas, Defendant — Appellant.
Nos. 05-50313, 05-50315.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 9, 2006.
Filed Feb. 17, 2006.
Ellyn M. Lindsay, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kathryn A. Young, Esq., FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The written resentencing order must be corrected to conform to the district court's oral pronouncement of sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir.1993). As the government concedes, the oral pronouncement of sentence did not include any period of supervised release. Thus, the period of supervised release in the written order must be stricken.
In addition, the findings in the written order should be corrected to conform to the record. The new resentencing order should specify that defendant had only one prior drug offense. Further, it should eliminate the implication that defendant's prior conviction for domestic violence was exceptionally violent by omitting the word "violent" from the phrase "violent domestic violence."
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.