Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto HERNANDEZ-AMPARAN, aka Alberto Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-26
Citations: 325 F. App'x 632
Docket Number: No. 07-10508
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto HERNANDEZ-AMPARAN, aka Alberto Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 632–633

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto HERNANDEZ-AMPARAN, aka Alberto Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10508.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2009.
Filed May 26, 2009.
Monte Cress Clausen, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael J. Bresnehan, Esquire, Michael J. Bresnehan PC, Tempe, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alberto Hernandez-Amparan appeals from the 33-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for illegal re-entry after 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.
Hernandez-Amparan contends that the district court erred at sentencing by incorrectly assuming that he was subject to a twenty-year statutory maximum penalty pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). We conclude that Hernandez-Amparan has failed to demonstrate that any error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.2008).
At the government's request, we remand the case to the district court with instructions to correct the reference in the judgment to § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000).
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.