Court Opinion

ID: 9464956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:00:47.512401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:02.612459
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20055        Document: 00516846481             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/04/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                     August 4, 2023
                                      No. 23-20055
                                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                          Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jose Antonio Juarez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:12-CR-160-2
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         The district court revoked Jose Antonio Juarez’s supervised release
   and sentenced him to 24 months of imprisonment and three years of
   supervised release. In his sole issue on appeal, Juarez argues—and the
   Government agrees—that the written revocation judgment contains a

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20055      Document: 00516846481          Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/04/2023

                                    No. 23-20055

   clerical error. Juarez and the Government therefore seek a remand for
   correction of the judgment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.
          Rule 36 “allows a court ‘at any time’ to correct clerical errors in the
   judgment ‘[a]fter giving any notice it considers appropriate.’” United States
   v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 36).
   The rule applies “[w]here the record makes it clear that an issue was actually
   litigated and decided but was incorrectly recorded in . . . the judgment.”
   United States v. Cooper, 979 F.3d 1084, 1089 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). We may review clerical errors in a
   judgment for the first time on appeal and remand for correction of the errors
   under Rule 36. See Powell, 354 F.3d at 371-72.
          In this case, the record makes clear that the written revocation
   judgment contains a clerical error. At the revocation hearing, Juarez pleaded
   true only to the first violation identified in the probation officer’s petition,
   the Government abandoned the second violation in the petition, and the
   district court revoked Juarez’s supervised release and sentenced him based
   on the first violation alone. Nonetheless, the written judgment erroneously
   states that Juarez admitted guilt to both the first and second violations, and
   that he was adjudicated guilty of both of those violations. In other words, the
   written judgment “incorrectly recorded” how the second violation was
   resolved at the revocation hearing. Cooper, 979 F.3d at 1089 (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). As such, the error in the written
   judgment is a clerical one that is subject to correction under Rule 36.
          Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED, and the case is
   REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting that clerical error in the
   judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 36.

                                          2