USA v. Raul Araguz-Ramirez, No. 11-40530 (5th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-40530 Document: 00511808724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-40530 Summary Calendar April 2, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAUL ARAGUZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-48-1 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and PRADO and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Raul Araguz-Ramirez (Araguz) appeals from the judgment imposed after the district court revoked the term of supervised release that he was serving in connection with his 2004 illegal-reentry conviction. He concedes that he violated the conditions of his supervised release that prohibited him from committing another crime and from illegally reentering the United States. He argues, however, that the written judgment includes a clerical error insofar as it indicates that he additionally violated the conditions of his supervised release * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-40530 Document: 00511808724 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2012 No. 11-40530 by committing the offense of public intoxication. The Government concedes the error. Our review of the record confirms that whether Araguz had violated his supervised release conditions by committing the offense of public intoxication was not at issue during the revocation hearing. Because the district court made no mention a such a violation at any point in the revocation hearing, including during its oral pronouncement of sentence, the oral pronouncement of sentence conflicts with the written judgment, and the case is REMANDED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE of allowing the district court to conform its written judgment to its oral pronouncement of sentence. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.