Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50745/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50745-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Helms
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50745

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT HELMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:14-CR-189-31

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Helms appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction of 

conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine. He 

contends that the written judgment improperly includes a special condition of 

supervised release that conflicts with the district court’s oral pronouncement 

of sentence. The Government, conceding error, asks this court to reform the 

written judgment and affirm the judgment as modified. 

 

* 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

July 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50745 Document: 00513580984 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2016
No. 15-50745

2

Helms had no opportunity to object to the special condition of supervised 

release that was included in the written judgment. Accordingly, this court will 

review the imposition of that condition for an abuse of discretion. United States 

v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2006). Helms has made that showing.

At sentencing, the district court sentenced Helms to a three-year term of 

supervised release without mentioning that he would be subject to any specific 

conditions. The district court later issued a written judgment that directly 

conflicted with its oral pronouncement of sentence by including a special 

condition of supervised release requiring Helms to submit to searches by his 

probation officer.1 See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 

2001). In the event of a conflict, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls

and the written judgment must be amended to conform to the orally imposed

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

Accordingly, we GRANT the Government’s motion to reform the 

judgment, MODIFY the judgment to strike the special condition of release 

requiring Helms to submit to searches by his probation officer, and AFFIRM 

the judgment as modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. The Government’s alternative 

motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

 

1 The special condition provides that:

The defendant shall submit his or her person, property, house, 

residence, office vehicle, papers, computers as defined in 18 U.S.C. 

Section 1030(e)(1), and other electronic communications or data storage 

devices or media, to a search conducted by a United States probation 

officer. Failure to submit to a search may be grounds for revocation of 

release. The defendant shall warn any occupant that the premises may 

be subject to searches pursuant to this condition. Any search must be 

conducted at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. The 

United States probation officer may conduct a search when a reasonable 

suspicion exists that the defendant may have violated a condition of 

supervision or if there is a violation of law.

 Case: 15-50745 Document: 00513580984 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2016