Fausto Ortiz-Cuevas asserts for the first time on appeal that the district court erroneously convicted and sentenced him to 24 months in prison under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which carries a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years. We agree that Ortiz-Cuevas’s pri- or New Jersey conviction for assault with a deadly weapon was not an aggravated felony for purposes of subsection (b)(2) because his sentence was less than one year in prison. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 368-69 (5th Cir. 2009). His conduct in this case violated § 1326(b)(1), which carries a statutory maximum prison term of 10 years. See § 1326(b)(1); Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 368-69.

Ortiz-Cuevas contends that the district court’s error in assessing the statutory sentencing range was a factor in the court’s sentencing decision that requires resentencing. However, plain error review applies, and Ortiz-Cuevas cannot meet his burden of proving that the error affected his substantial rights, as he was sentenced well under the 10-year statutory maximum and nothing suggests § 1326(b)(2) was a factor. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 368-69. Nevertheless, as in Mondragon-Santiago, we “reform the judgment to reflect the correct statutory subsection.” Id. at 369.

AFFIRMED, with the judgment REFORMED to reflect conviction and sentencing under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1).