Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Daniel Alanis-Garza, 15-41520 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 15-41520 Visitors: 113
Filed: Jun. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 15-41520 Document: 00513574901 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-41520 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 30, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee v. DANIEL ALANIS-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CR-902-1 Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Dan
More
Case: 15-41520 Document: 00513574901 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-41520 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 30, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee v. DANIEL ALANIS-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CR-902-1 Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Daniel Alanis-Garza has appealed the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a 24-month term of imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court agreed to recommend that Alanis-Garza be placed in a facility in Three Rivers or as close to South Texas as possible. Although the judgment in Alanis-Garza’s new criminal case includes the recommendation, the written revocation judgment does not. Alanis-Garza * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 15-41520 Document: 00513574901 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2016 No. 15-41520 contends that this omission is in the nature of a clerical error and that the case should be remanded for correction of the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The Government asserts that this court lacks jurisdiction because the issue raised does not involve an appealable final decision. We disagree. The case is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error in the written judgment, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 36. In all other respects, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer