The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction but remanded the case to correct a clerical error in the written judgment. The court held that the written judgment must align with the district court's oral pronouncement regarding concurrent sentencing.
Background
Eduardo Ramiro Gonzalez-Leal pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal and was sentenced to seventy-six months of imprisonment. On appeal, he argued that the written judgment did not match the oral pronouncement that his federal sentence would run concurrently with an undischarged state sentence.
The court’s reasoning
The court agreed with the defendant and the Government that the written judgment must be conformed to comply with the district court’s oral pronouncement. The court cited Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure thirty-six and United States versus Illies.
What it means going forward
The conviction stands, but the district court must issue a corrected judgment to reflect the concurrent sentencing order made orally at the time of sentencing.
