NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 15, 2012* Decided April 23, 2012

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 11‐2482 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, of Illinois, Eastern Division. Plaintiff‐Appellee, No. 06 CR 562 v. Charles R. Norgle, Sr. SALEM FUAD ALJABRI, Judge. Defendant‐Appellant.

O R D E R

On March 24, 2007, Salem Fuad Aljabri was convicted of a total of 25 counts of money laundering, wire fraud, and structuring transactions to evade required reporting.

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 11‐2482 Page 2

His sentence included a $2,400 special assessment. On February 2, 2010, this court issued an opinion vacating the five money‐laundering counts and remanding the matter for resentencing on the remainder. United States v. Aljabri, 363 F. App’x 403 (7th Cir. 2010). Pursuant to that remand, the district court held a sentencing hearing on June 17, 2011. At the hearing the district court imposed an oral sentence that included a special assessment of $1,900. However, the written judgment issued by the district court specified an assessment of $2,400. The oral sentence was the correct one—19 counts remained on remand, and 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A) requires an assessment of $100 for each conviction. Rather than asking the district court to correct the error via a motion under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Aljabri appealed to this court to resolve the discrepancy.

We decline to do so. When a district court has committed a clerical error and we have jurisdiction through a properly filed appeal, we have the power to correct the problem ourselves under Rule 36. United States v. Bonner, 522 F.3d 804, 808‐09 (7th Cir. 2008). However, we generally prefer to vacate the flawed order and instruct the district court to fix its own mistake. Id. We pursue that course here.

The amended judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED solely for the district court to correct the above‐specified clerical error.