MEMORANDUM **
Antonio Alba-Romero appeals from the district courts judgment and challenges the 12-month term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted unlawful entry by an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325, and attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Contrary to Alba-Romeros contention, the district courts oral announcement of a three-year term of supervised release does not require remand. While he is correct that the supervised release term could not exceed one year, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3581(b)(5) and 3583(b)(3), the district court properly corrected its “clear error” by imposing a one-year term in the written judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a); United States v. Colace, 126 F.3d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 1997). Alba-Romeros presence was not required for that correction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(4).
Alba-Romero also argues that the district court procedurally erred by imposing a term of supervised release. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court determined supervised release would provide an additional measure of deterrence given Alba-Romeros immigration history and family ties to the United States. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5. Contrary to Alba-Romeros argument, the district court did not rely on any clearly erroneous findings of fact in reaching that conclusion. On this record, Alba-Romero has not shown a reasonable probability of a different sentence absent the cumulative impact of the district courts alleged procedural errors in imposing supervised release. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 1993) (cumulative impact of possible plain errors is reviewed for plain error).
AFFIRMED.