Case: 24-20433 Document: 57-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 24-20433 May 27, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Carl Edward Preston, Jr., Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-14-3 ______________________________ Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* In contesting the district court’s revoking his supervised release, Carl Edward Preston, Jr., contends only that the revocation judgment contains a clerical error concerning his payment schedule for restitution. The Government agrees.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-20433 Document: 57-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2025

No. 24-20433

The claimed clerical error relates to a discrepancy in the repayment term provided in Preston’s earlier criminal judgment and the revocation judgment. In his earlier criminal judgment, Line D of the Schedule of Payments sheet provided that payment was due “in equal monthly installments of $200 over a period of 34 months, to commence 30 days after release from imprisonment to a term of supervision”. In contrast, the corresponding provision in the revocation judgment’s Schedule of Payments sheet provides that payment is due “in equal monthly installments of $200 over a period of 36 months, to commence 30 days after release from imprisonment to a term of supervision”.

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, our court may review a judgment sua sponte for clerical errors and remand for the limited purpose of correcting them. United States v. Illies, 805 F.3d 607, 610 (5th Cir. 2015).

A clerical error occurs “when the court intended one thing but by merely clerical mistake or oversight did another”. United States v. Buendia-Rangel, 553 F.3d 378, 379 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Based on our review of the record, the parties are correct: the revocation judgment should refer to the same 34-month period in Line D of the earlier criminal judgment; the discrepancy is a clerical error in the revocation judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36; Buendia-Rangel, 553 F.3d at 379.

AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED to correct the clerical error in the revocation judgment.