Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Manuel OROSCO-CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-18
Citations: 264 F. App'x 589
Docket Number: No. 06-50270
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Juan Manuel OROSCO-CORTEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 264
Pages: 589–589

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Juan Manuel OROSCO-CORTEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-50270.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
Filed Jan. 18, 2008.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Sarah J. Heidel, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Verna J. Wefald, Esq., Attorney at Law, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Manuel Orosco-Cortez appeals from the 95-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.
Orosco-Cortez contends that the district court erred by failing to recognize that it had authority to depart downwards under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.11, or based upon the totality of the circumstances. However, we have stated that the district court need not "calculate what departure[s] would be allowable under the old mandatory [Guidelines] scheme." See United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 986 (9th Cir.2006). The record reflects that the district court properly considered Orosco-Cortez's departure-related contentions within the context of its analysis of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See id. at 986-87.
We remand to the district court with instructions to correct the reference in the judgment to "8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2)." See United States v. Herrero-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.