Case: 08-40669 Document: 00511191068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 2, 2010
No. 08-40669
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RAMIRO GARCIA-CARDENAS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:07-CR-989-ALL
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ramiro Garcia-Cardenas (Garcia) appeals the sentence imposed following
his guilty plea conviction for being found in the United States unlawfully
following deportation (Count One) and for possession with intent to distribute
marijuana (Count Three). The district court sentenced Garcia to 60 months of
imprisonment and four years of supervised release but did not specify whether
this sentence applied to both offenses for which he was convicted. After briefing
was complete in this case, the district court, pursuant to this court’s order to
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 08-40669 Document: 00511191068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2010
No. 08-40669
provide clarification, issued an amended judgment that imposed a 60-month
sentence of imprisonment, a four-year term of supervised release as to Count
Three, and no term of supervised release as to Count One.
Garcia argues that the district court issued an illegal general sentence,
and he requests remand for resentencing. “A single sentence on two or more
counts for a term within the aggregate is not illegal although . . . it is not in the
most desirable form.” United States v. Granger, 275 F.2d 127, 128 (5th Cir.
1960). Garcia’s 60-month sentence of imprisonment on Count One and Count
Three is not an illegal general sentence for which resentencing is required. See
Clark v. United States, 367 F.2d 378, 380 (5th Cir. 1966).
As to the term of supervised release, any concerns that an illegal general
sentence was imposed have been eliminated by the clarifying amended
judgment, which makes clear that Garcia has not been sentenced to supervised
release on Count One and that the four-year term of supervised release has been
imposed only as to Count Three. Thus, the district court’s judgment does not
constitute an illegal general sentence. See Benson v. United States, 332 F.2d
288, 291 (5th Cir. 1964). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment, as clarified
by the amended judgment, is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
2