Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40957/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40957-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Gil-Perez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40957

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS GIL-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-1471-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Carlos Gil-Perez appeals the sentence imposed 

following the revocation of his supervised release. Specifically, he challenges 

the reimposition of a $100 special assessment in the district court’s written 

judgment.

We generally review revocation sentences under the “plainly 

unreasonable” standard of 18 U.S.C. § 3472. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 

 

* 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

June 3, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-40957 Document: 00513064987 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2015
No. 14-40957

2

841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). A review of the transcript of the instant revocation 

hearing reflects that the district court’s reimposition of the special assessment

in the written judgment is contrary to its oral pronouncement and to evidence 

presented at the hearing. Therefore, as the government concedes, a conflict 

exists between the oral and written judgments. In such a situation, the oral 

pronouncement controls. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th 

Cir. 2001). We therefore modify the district court’s judgment, striking the 

reimposed $100 special assessment so that the written judgment conforms 

with the oral pronouncement, and we affirm the judgment as modified. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2106; United States v. Orduna-Perales, 530 F. App’x 355, 356 (5th Cir. 

2013).

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

Case: 14-40957 Document: 00513064987 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2015