Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orlando Giovanni HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-18
Citations: 613 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 14-41237
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orlando Giovanni HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 406–407

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orlando Giovanni HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41237
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Orlando Giovanni Hernandez raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir.2009), which held that knowledge of drug type and quantity is not an element of the 21 U.S.C. § 841 offense. The motion for summary disposition is granted, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
.The record, however, reflects a clerical error in the written judgment. The written judgment reflects Hernandez was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 84(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, rather than under § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. Accordingly, we remand for correction of the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir.1979).
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED; LIMITED REMAND FOR CORRECTION OF JUDGMENT.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.