Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gabriel RENTERIA-BEAR, also known as Gabriel Renteria-Vear, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-14
Citations: 695 F. App'x 82
Docket Number: No. 16-41580
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gabriel RENTERIA-BEAR, also known as Gabriel Renteria-Vear, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 82–82

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gabriel RENTERIA-BEAR, also known as Gabriel Renteria-Vear, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-41580
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed August 14, 2017
Jessica Carol Akins, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Kayla R. Gassmann, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kathryn She-phard, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gabriel Renteria-Bear pleaded guilty to being found in the United States after a previous deportation. At sentencing, the district court agreed to recommend that Renteria-Bear be housed in a facility offering job training; that recommendation was not contained in the written judgment. Thus, Renteria-Bear requests remand pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 so that the district court can correct the written judgment to reflect the oral recommendation. The Government concedes that the judgment should be modified to correct the error. Accordingly, we affirm and remand to the district court for correction of the clerical error. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36.
AFFIRMED AND 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.