Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario MARQUEZ-SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-27
Citations: 349 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 08-50234
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario MARQUEZ-SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 349
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario MARQUEZ-SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50234.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 27, 2009.
Charles John Kovats, Jr., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, Xóchitl Arteaga, Assistant U.S., AUSA-Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joan Politeo, Esquire, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Riverside, CA, Elizabeth Newman, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mario Marquez-Solis appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry by an alien following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.
Marquez-Solis contends that the district court plainly erred by assigning two criminal history points pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(d), because the record does not demonstrate that he was on parole at the time he committed the instant offense. We find no plain error because the uncontested presentence report indicates that Marquez-Solis was on parole at the time, and he has not demonstrated otherwise. See United States v. Santiago, 466 F.3d 801, 803 (9th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Romero-Rendon, 220 F.3d 1159, 1161-63 (9th Cir.2000).
We remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). See United States v. Riverar-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000); see also United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)(2)).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.