
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis VALLE-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-41719 Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed February 21, 2017
    Paula Camille Offenhauser, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Philip G. Gallagher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX
    Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Luis Valle-Ramirez raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Torres-Jaime, 821 F.3d 577 (5th Cir. 2016), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 1, 2016) (No. 16-5853). In Torres-Jaime, we held that a Georgia conviction for aggravated assault qualifies as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 (2014). Torres-Jaime, 821 F.3d at 580-85. He also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). In Gonzalez-Longoria, we held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which defines a crime of violence when incorporated by reference into § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C), is not unconstitutionally vague on its face in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d at 672. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Nevertheless, the written judgment contains a clerical error in that it identifies Valle-Ramirez’s statute of conviction as 8 U.S.C. § 1324, rather than § 1326. We therefore REMAND for correction of the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir. 1979). 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     