Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-27
Citations: 320 F. App'x 700
Docket Number: No. 08-50195
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 700–701

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50195.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 27, 2009.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Reuven L. Cohen, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kathryn Ann Young, Sean Kevin Kennedy, Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jaime Rodriguez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jaime Rodriguez appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.
Rodriguez contends that his sentence must be vacated and remanded for re-sentencing due to the district court's technical violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e)(2). We conclude that the error did not affect his substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).
We remand to the district court with directions to delete from the judgment of conviction the incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Herrera-Bianco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).
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.