Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41302/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41302-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mario Alberto Netro-Perales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41302

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

MARIO ALBERTO NETRO-PERALES, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CR-368-1

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 twentyseven months’ imprisonment, followed by a three-year term of supervised 

release. At sentencing the district court orally pronounced two special 

conditions: that Netro-Perales (1) “is not to re-enter the United States illegally” 

 

* 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

February 12, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41302 Document: 00513379403 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2016
No. 15-41302

2

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 F. 

App’x 338, 339 (5th Cir. 2015) (granting an unopposed motion to remand under 

similar circumstances). 

 Case: 15-41302 Document: 00513379403 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2016