UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 01-41170
(Summary Calendar)
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOMERO MENDEZ-ALVAREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-01-CR-439-ALL
June 5, 2002
Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Homero Mendez-Alvarez appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United
States following deportation after an aggravated felony conviction. Mendez-Alvarez asserts, and the
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Government concedes, that the district court’s written judgment does not comport with its oral
pronouncement of sentence.
At sentencing, the district court orally stated that the second and third counts of Mendez-
Alvarez’s indictment were dismissed. In its written judgment, however, the district court failed to
address those additional counts. The law is well settled that if there is any conflict between the oral
pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment itself, the terms of the oral pronouncement
control. See Scott v. United States, 434 F.2d 11, 20 (5th Cir. 1970). Thus, the judgment of the
district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of allowing the
district court to amend its written judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement at sentencing. See
United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001).
Mendez-Alvarez’s motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief is DENIED. See 5TH
CIR. R. 28.7; Myers v. Johnson, 76 F.3d 1330, 1335 (5th Cir. 1996).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PRO SE BRIEF DENIED; JUDGMENT VACATED
AND CASE REMANDED FOR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT.
-2-