Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0280-01.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. Mario Alberto NETRO-PERALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-41302
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 12, 2016.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher; Assistant Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mario Alberto Netro-Perales pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). The district court sentenced him to twenty-seven months’ imprisonment, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. At sentencing the district court orally pronounced two special conditions: that Ne-tro-Perales (1) “is not to re-enter the United States illegally” and (2) “if in the United States ... shall not drink alcoholic beverages without the permission of the probation office.” The written judgment reflects these two special conditions, but adds a third: that Netro-Perales “shall not drive a motorized vehicle ... while in the United States without the permission of the probation officer.”

Netro-Perales’s sole argument on appeal is that the motorized-vehicle special condition in his written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement of his sentence. “When there is a conflict between a written sentence and an oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls.” United States v. Wheeler, 322 F.3d 823, 828 (5th Cir.2003) (quoting United States v. Moreci, 283 F.3d 293, 300 (5th Cir.2002)). And “[i]f a conflict exists, the appropriate remedy is remand to the district court to amend the written judgment to conform to the oral sentence.” United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551, 558 (5th Cir.2006). The Government agrees — and our review of the record confirms — that the motor-vehicle special condition in the written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement in this case. Therefore, we GRANT the Government’s unopposed motion to REMAND this case to the district court for the limited purpose of conforming the written judgment to its oral pronouncement at sentencing. See United States v. Mascorro-Cruz, 596 Fed.Appx. 338, 339 (5th Cir.2015) (granting an unopposed motion to remand under similar circumstances). 
      
       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.