Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40185/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40185-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ezequiel Campuzano-Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40185

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

EZEQUIEL CAMPUZANO-MARTINEZ,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1540

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ezequiel Campuzano-Martinez challenges the judgment imposed 

following revocation of supervised release, arising from his conviction for 

unlawful reentry into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

The written judgment of revocation stated Campuzano violated two

special conditions of release: (1) illegal reentry after previous deportation; and 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 5, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40185 Document: 00513260558 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2015
No. 15-40185

2

(2) illegal reentry and failure to immediately report to the nearest United 

States Probation Office.

Campuzano asserts the court abused its discretion in finding he violated 

the second special condition. He maintains he did not admit to the violation at 

the revocation hearing, and the court made no oral pronouncement of that 

violation. 

Obviously, Campuzano had no opportunity to object to the discrepancy 

between the oral pronouncement and written judgment; therefore, review is 

for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 

935 (5th Cir. 2003). If the court fails to address the defendant during the 

revocation hearing concerning his plea to an alleged violation, and does not 

refer to the violation during the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement 

and written judgment are in conflict, and the case must be remanded to allow 

the court to conform its written judgment to its oral pronouncement. E.g., 

United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. 

Hernandez-Ortega, 458 F. App’x 395, 396 (5th Cir. 2012).

The condition of release at issue required Campuzano to report to the 

nearest United States probation office immediately following a lawful entry 

into the United States, which did not occur in this instance. Therefore, this

matter is remanded for the limited purpose of amending the written judgment

to remove the determination that Campuzano was found guilty of the violation 

of failing to report to the nearest United States probation office immediately 

upon reentering the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

 Case: 15-40185 Document: 00513260558 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2015