Case ID: f-appx_87/html/0977-01.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. Jose Guadalupe ESPINOZA-CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-41691
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 18, 2004.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Houston, TX, Mark Michael Dowd, Brownsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roland E Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Guadalupe Espinoza-Cardenas pleaded guilty to one count of illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325. He was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment and one year of supervised release. Espinoza-Cardenas argues that there is a conflict between the written and oral judgments. The written judgment contains a condition of supervised release prohibiting the possession of a dangerous weapon; the oral pronouncement of sentence did not mention this provision. For the reasons outlined in United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 935-38 (5th Cir.2003), we conclude that the district court’s omission of the dangerous weapon prohibition during the oral pronouncement of sentence did not create a conflict with the sentence set forth in the judgment.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.