Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50542/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50542-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Alan Breckenridge
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50542

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER ALAN BRECKENRIDGE, also known as Christopher 

Breckenridge,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:14-CR-189-16

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Alan Breckenridge appeals the 130-month sentence 

imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent 

to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a 

detectable amount of methamphetamine. He argues that the district court 

 

* 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

August 16, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50542 Document: 00513640154 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2016
No. 15-50542

2

abused its discretion by imposing written special conditions of supervised 

release that are more onerous than those pronounced orally at sentencing.

Breckenridge is correct in his contention that the district court abused 

its discretion when it broadened special conditions of supervised release. See

United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378, 381-383 (5th Cir. 2006). The written 

judgment includes a search provision that was not orally pronounced at 

sentencing. The search provision is not one of the mandatory or standard 

conditions of supervised release required by statute or adopted by the Western 

District of Texas in its Standing Order. By including the search provision in 

the judgment, the district court impermissibly modified the special conditions, 

thereby creating a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written 

judgment. See United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 852-53 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Consequently, we order a limited remand and instruct the district court to 

modify, in a manner consistent with this opinion, the special conditions in the 

written judgment in order to have them conform to the special conditions 

pronounced orally at sentencing. 

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED IN PART; 

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

 Case: 15-50542 Document: 00513640154 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2016