As his sole issue on appeal, Joe Santana argues that his case should be remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the written judgment to reflect that he was convicted of a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 or more kilograms of marijuana, as charged in Count 1 of the indictment, rather than for “[possession with intent to distribute, approximately 1430.51kilograms of marijuana.” The Government concurs that the error involved is clearly a clerical one which should be corrected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The Government also notes that the written judgment does not reflect that Count 2 of the indictment was dismissed upon its motion. We have noted sua sponte that this court must remand for the purpose of correcting irregularities contained in the judgment. United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir. 1979).

The case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of the entry of a corrected judgment reflecting that Santana was convicted of a conspiracy offense and that Count 2 was dismissed on the Government’s motion.