Case ID: f-appx_530/html/0355-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique ORDUNA-PERALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-41008
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 19, 2013.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Soko-low, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Enrique Orduna-Perales appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Specifically, he challenges the district court’s reimposition of a $100 special assessment.

We review revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3742’s “plainly unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.2011). A review of the transcript from the revocation hearing reflects that the district court’s reimposition of the special assessment is contrary to the oral pronouncement and evidence presented at the hearing. Therefore, as the Government concedes, a conflict exists between the oral and written judgments. In such a case, the oral pronouncement controls. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is modified to strike the reimposition of the $100 special assessment so that the written judgment is in conformance with the oral pronouncement, and we affirm the judgment as so modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; see also United States v. Hermoso, 484 Fed.Appx. 970, 972-73 (5th Cir.2012).

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.