
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Alberto GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-41113
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 10, 2008.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Alberto Gonzalez pleaded guilty to being an alien who “attempted to enter” the United States after having previously been denied admission, excluded, deported, and removed, following a prior aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). In the written judgment, the district court stated the “Nature of Offense” as “Alien Unlawfully Found in the United States After Deportation, Having Been Previously Convicted of an Aggravated Felony.”

The sole argument Gonzalez presents on appeal is that the written judgment, by indicating that he was convicted of the § 1326 offense of being unlawfully found in the United States, erroneously describes the § 1326 offense to which he pleaded guilty, which was attempted reentry. The Government concedes that there is a clerical error in the judgment and that the case should be remanded for the sole purpose of correcting the error.

After the parties filed their initial briefs, the district court entered an amended judgment for the purpose of correcting the error. The amended judgment states that the “Nature of Offense” is “Attempted Illegal Re-entry into the United States After Deportation, Having Been Previously Convicted of an Aggravated Felony.” Thus, the amended judgment correctly reflects the offense of conviction. See § 1326(a)(2); United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529, 531-32 (5th Cir.2000). As the amended judgment provides the sole relief that Gonzalez seeks, the appeal is moot. See United States v. Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 847 (5th Cir.1999); Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir.1987).

DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     