United States of America v. Jose Vallejo, a.k.a. Creeper

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE VALLEJO, a.k.a. Creeper,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 13-50038
13-50069
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00935-R
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, 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
FILED
FEB 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 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.
13-50038 & 13-50069 2

-- 2 of 2 --