Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul ARAGUZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-02
Citations: 465 F. App'x 388
Docket Number: No. 11-40530
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul ARAGUZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and PRADO and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 465
Pages: 388–389

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul ARAGUZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-40530
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 2, 2012.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and PRADO and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raul Araguz-Ramirez (Araguz) appeals from the judgment imposed after the district court revoked the term of supervised release that he was serving in connection with his 2004 illegal-reentry conviction. He concedes that he violated the conditions of his supervised release that prohibited him from committing another crime and from illegally reentering the United States. He argues, however, that the written judgment includes a clerical error insofar as it indicates that he additionally violated the conditions of his supervised release by committing the offense of public intoxication. The Government concedes the error.
Our review of the record confirms that whether Araguz had violated his supervised release conditions by committing the offense of public intoxication was not at issue during the revocation hearing. Because the district court made no mention a such a violation at any point in the revocation hearing, including during its oral pronouncement of sentence, the oral pronouncement of sentence conflicts with the written judgment, and the case is REMANDED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE of allowing the district court to conform its written judgment to its oral pronouncement of sentence. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.