Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Valentin LOPEZ-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-08
Citations: 253 F. App'x 404
Docket Number: No. 06-41708
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Valentin LOPEZ-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 253
Pages: 404–405

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Valentin LOPEZ-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-41708
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 8, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Valentin Lopez-Alvarez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202).
Lopez-Alvarez also requests a remand to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment under Fed. R.CrimP. 36 to reflect that he pleaded guilty to attempted illegal reentry into the United States. The Government joins in Lopez-Alvarez's request that we remand for correction of the clerical error. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is granted, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. We remand to the district court with an instruction to correct the judgment pursuant to Fed. R.CrimP. 36 to reflect that Lopez-Alvarez pleaded guilty to attempted reentry of a deported alien.
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE GRANTED; REMANDED with instruction.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.