USA V. JOSE VALLEJO, No. 13-50038 (9th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 13-50038 13-50069 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00935-R v. JOSE VALLEJO, a.k.a. Creeper, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2014** Before: ALARCÃ N, O SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Jose Vallejo appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He also appeals from the district court s order denying his motion to correct * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). the judgment and commitment order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Vallejo contends that the judgment and commitment order, which imposed a 57-month term of imprisonment, conflicts with the oral pronouncement of the sentence. Contrary to Vallejo s contention, the record reflects that the district court orally imposed a 57-month sentence. Moreover, even if the oral pronouncement were ambiguous, the district court did not err in denying Vallejo s motion to correct the judgment. See United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359, 1368 (9th Cir. 1994) ( [T]he written sentence will control where there are ambiguities in the oral pronouncement of the sentence, and the writing resolves the ambiguity. ), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Jackson, 167 F.3d 1280 (9th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED. 2 13-50038 & 13-50069

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.