Case ID: f-appx_144/html/0446-02.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. Leslie Ray NEWSOME, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-20465.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Oct. 11, 2005.
    James Lee Turner, Julia Bowen Stern, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A Meyers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Leslie Ray Newsome (Newsome) appeals his sentence for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base following the revocation of his supervised release. Newsome argues that at the sentencing following the revocation of his supervised release, the district court expressly directed that his supervised release would be “on the same terms as we had before.” Newsome further argues that neither the previous supervision order nor the court’s oral pronouncement prohibited him from possessing a dangerous weapon. Newsome argues that the condition barring his possession of “any other dangerous weapon” must be stricken from the written judgment because it conflicts with the sentence orally pronounced by the district court.

For the reasons outlined in United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 937-38 (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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.