
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos PERAZA-CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50556.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
    
    Filed Aug. 31, 2009.
    Robert Steven Huie, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Doug Keller, Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Carlos Peraza-Carrillo appeals from the 52-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Peraza-Carrillo contends that the district court proeedurally erred by imposing a sentence that it considered “reasonable” rather than one that was “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to accomplish the goals of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We review for plain error, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008), and affirm because Per-aza-Carrillo has not established any error affected his substantial rights, see id. at 761-62.

As Peraza-Carrillo acknowledges, his contention that the sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is foreclosed. See United States v. Garcia-Cardenas, 555 F.3d 1049, 1051 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

We remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). See United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000); see also United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)(2)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     