Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Roberto CERVANTES, also known as Roberto Cervantes, also known as Gilberto Espinosa, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-10
Citations: 302 F. App'x 271
Docket Number: No. 07-41097
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Roberto CERVANTES, also known as Roberto Cervantes, also known as Gilberto Espinosa, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 271–272

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Roberto CERVANTES, also known as Roberto Cervantes, also known as Gilberto Espinosa, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-41097
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 10, 2008.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Roberto Cervantes appeals from his guilty plea conviction of one count of illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He requests only that this court exercise its power pursuant to Fed. R. Crim P. 36 to correct an alleged clerical error in the judgment. Specifically, he alleges that the judgment of the district court misidentifies the nature of his offense as "[r]e-entry of a deported alien" when it should state that he was illegally found in the United States.
Rule 36 provides that the court may at any time, after giving whatever notice it deems appropriate, correct a clerical error in the judgment. The rule authorizes the court to correct only such errors that exist because " 'the court intended one thing but by merely clerical mistake or oversight did another.' " See United States v. Steen, 55 F.3d 1022, 1025-26 n. 3 (5th Cir.1995) (quoting Dura-Wood Treating Co. v. Century Forest Indus., Inc., 694 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir.1982)). In the district court's judgment, the "Nature of Offense" description, "[r]e-entry of a deported alien," closely tracks the § 1326 title, "[rjeentry of removed aliens," and, therefore, bears no indication that the district court made a mistake. Rather, it appears that the district court intended the "Nature of Offense" to refer generally to the title of § 1326.
The method of reference to § 1326 in the instant case is not uncommon. This court has often used the term "illegal reentry" in reference to violations of § 1326 generally. See, e.g., United States v. Gunera, 479 F.3d 373, 376 (5th Cir.2007). Be cause the district court's judgment in the instant case apparently used the term "[r]e-entry of a deported alien" intentionally in reference to § 1326 generally, there is no clerical error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
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.