IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-51166
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
RAMON MANUEL SANCHEZ
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-01-CR-14-1
--------------------
December 30, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMoss and Benavides, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ramon Manuel Sanchez appeals his guilty-plea convictions and
sentences for conspiring to possess marijuana with intent to
distribute and for conspiring to import marijuana. He contends
that his convictions violated double jeopardy, in light of his
prior guilty pleas to substantive offenses of possessing
marijuana with the intent to distribute during the time of the
conspiracy. Although Sanchez challenged the indictment on double
jeopardy grounds in the district court, his failure to object 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-51166
-2-
the magistrate judge’s report on the issue requires review for
plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). “[A] substantive crime
and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not the ‘same offence’
for double jeopardy purposes.” United States v. Felix, 503 U.S.
378, 389 (1992).
Sanchez also contends that the district court misapplied the
Sentencing Guidelines by including drug quantities that were used
to calculate the sentences in his previous substantive offenses.
If the Government chooses to conduct separate proceedings for
offenses arising out of the same relevant conduct, the trial
court should accomplish a result comparable to the result of a
single proceeding “by (1) imposition of a concurrent sentence,
and (2) giving credit for time served.” United States v. Wittie,
25 F.3d 250, 261 (5th Cir. 1994), aff’d sub nom., Witte v. United
States, 515 U.S. 389 (1995); see also U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)
& comment. (n.2). The district court ran the current and former
sentences concurrently and stated at sentencing that Sanchez
should receive credit for time served. However, the written
judgment does not indicate that Sanchez should receive credit for
time served. As the district court indicated its desire for such
credit, the written judgment should be amended to show this
result. Consequently, Sanchez’s conviction and sentence are
AFFIRMED, but the case is REMANDED to the district court for
No. 01-51166
-3-
amendment of the judgment in conformity with the oral statements
at sentencing.