Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50624

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. AA RO N SCO TT E LK I N S D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o rt he W e s t e r n Di s t r i c to f Te xa s , M i dl and U SD C N o. 4: 07- c r - 00197

B ef ore JO L L Y , SM ITH , an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Appe l l antAar o n Sc o t tEl ki ns pl e ad e d g ui l t y t o o ne c o unto f r e c e i pta nd p o s s e s s io n o f c h ildp o r n o g r a p h ya n do n e co u n t o f p o s s e s s io n o f c h ild po r no gr ap hy. The di s t r i c t c o ur t s e nt e nc e d hi m t o 13 5 m o nt hs o f i m pr i s o nm e nt on t he f or m erc ountand 120 m ont hs o n t he l at ter c ount , t o r un co ncur r ent l y. T h e di st ri ct cou rtal so i m posed t w o concurrent t en - year t erm s of sup ervi sed rel ease. A pp el l an tchal l en ges t w o speci alcondit i on s of sup ervi sed rel ease im p o s e db yth e d is tr ic t co u r t. F in d in g th a t o n e o f th e ch a lle n g e dco n d itio n s in United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 29, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50624

2 t h e j u d g me n tc o n f

l i c t s wi t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r a lp r o n o u n c e me n t , we S T RI KE t h a tc o n d i t i o n a n dA F F I RM a s MODI F I ED
. A tt he s ent enc i ng hear i ng, t he di st r i c tc our tannounced se ver als pec i al cond i t i on s of

E l kins’ s sup ervi sed rel ease. Th ese s peci alcondit i on s w ere l aterset f or t h i n t he w r i t t en j udgm ent
. A ddi t i onal l y, the w r i t t en j udgm entpr ovi ded t hat El ki ns “ s hal lno ta s s o c i at e w i t h a ny c hi l d o rc hi l dr e n und e rt he ag e o f 1 8 e xc e pt i n t he pr es enc e and supervi si on of an adul t spe c i f i c al l y des i gnat ed i n w r i t i ng by t he pr o ba t i o n o f

f i c e r . ” El ki ns c o nt e nds t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n i m po s i ng t hi s addi t i onalc ondi t i on be c ause i tc onf l i c ted w i th t he c our t ’ s or al pron ou n cem en tof

sentence. Th i s c la im i s r evi ew ed f or abu se of

di scr et i on bec ause t he def

endantdi d nothave th e op p or t uni t y t o o bj ec tats ent enc i ng. Un i t ed S t ate s v. W

ard en , 291 F. 3d 363, 365 n. 1 ( 5t h C i r . 2002)
. Th i s C our thas l ong r ec ogni ze d t hat“ a def endanthas a c ons t i t ut i onalr i ghtt o b e pr es entat
sen ten ci n g.” Uni t e d S t at e s v . Tor r e s -Agui lar , 3 5 2 F .3d 9 3 4 , 9 3 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). I f a c o nf l i c te xi s t s be t w e e n a w r i t t e n s e nt e nc e a nd a n o r alpr o no unc e m e nt , t he
o r a ls ta te m e n t c o n tr o ls
. Id
. Fur t he r , i f t he dif fe r e nc e b e t w e e n t he w r i t t en ju d g m e n t a n dth e o r a l p r o n o u n c e m e n t s im p lyco n s t i tu te s a n a m b ig u ity , th is C ou rt“ m u stlook to the i n t en tof the sen t en ci n g court, a s evidenced in the record to d eterm i n e th e d efen d a n t’ s sen ten ce.” Id
. (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd
c ita tio n o m itt e d ). M ore t o t h e poi n t , w e h ave hel d t h at “ [i] f t h e di st ri ctcourtoral l y i m poses a s e n te n c e o f s u p e r v is e dre le a s e w ith o u t st a tin g th e c o n d itio n s a p p lic a b le to th is per i od o f

s uper vi si on, t he j udgm ent ’ s i ncl usi on o f c ondi t i ons t hatar e m andat or y, st an da rd, or recom m en ded by the S en t en ci n g G u i del i n es does not creat e a con fl i ct w i th the ora lpr on ou n cem en t. ” Id . a t 9 3 8
. T h u s , if a co n d itio n is
m an da t ory, stand ard, or recom m en ded b y t h e app l i cabl e gu i del i n e, “ t h e w ri t t en j udg m e ntsi m pl y c l ar i f i e [ s ] t he m e ani ng o f

t hats e nt e nc e b y s pe c i f yi ng w hatt heN o. 08- 50624

3 su p erv i sion [i s m ea n t] to en tail
. ” Id
. ( al t erna t i on i n ori gi n al) (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d ). In t h e i n st an tcase, t h e governm en tdoes not c on t en d that t h e chal l en ged cond i t i on w h i ch proh ibi t s E l kins f rom assoc i ati n g “ w i t h an y ch il d or chi l dren
u n d e r t h e a g e o f 1 8 e x c e p t in th e p r e s e n c e a n ds u p e r v is io n o f a n a d u lt spec i f i c al l y de si gnat ed i n w r i t i ng by t he pr obat i on o f f i c er” i s m andat or y, s t and ar d o rr e c o m m e nde d b y t he a ppl i c able g ui de l i ne . N o ne t he l e s s , t he gov er nm entc ont end s thatt he c hal l enged c ondi t i on i s nota c onf l i c tbutan am bi gui t y. M o r e s pe c i f i c al l y, t he go ve r nm e nt ar gue s t hat i t i s c l ear t h at t he d i stri ct cou rt i n ten d ed to restrict E l k i n s’ s con tact w i th m i n ors. A l th o u g h it is tru e th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt verb a l l y im p ose doth er re stri cti o n s w i th resp ect to
c ont ac tw i t h m i nor s, t hi s c ondi t i on i s m or e “burde nso m e” i n t hati trequi r es an ad u l t , w h o ha s been p revi ou sl y ap proved by the probati on of f ic er, t o sup ervi se E lk in s a n y tim e h e a s s o c ia te s w ith a m in o r . S ee Un i t e dS t a t e s v . B ige lo w, 462 F
. 3 d37 8 , 38 3 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 6 ) (exp l a i n i n g th a t “th e w ri tten ju d g m e n t con fl i cts
w i t h t h e oralpronou n cem en tby i m posi n g a m ore burden som e requ i rem en tof pr i o ra ppr o va l , r at he rt han m e r e l y no t i f yi ng t he pr o ba t i o n o f f i c e rw he n a pplyi ng for , o r h a v in gob ta in e d , a n e w ide n tifi ca tion d o cu m e n t”). Rel yi ng o n Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mi reles , 4 71 F. 3d5 51 ( 5t h C i r. 2 00 6) , t he govern m en tasser t s t h at t h i s C ou rtf ou n d n o c o n f

l i ctbetw een t h e w ri t t en j u dg m en tan d the oralpronou n cem e nte ve n t h ou gh t h e w ri t t en j u dg m en tdi d n ot contai n l ang uag e us e d i n t he o r alpr o no unc e m e nt
. I n Mi reles , t h e s e n t e n c i ng cou rt ora l l y im p ose da co n d i ti on tha t requ i red the de fen d a n t, a tru ck dr ive r, to
a n n o u n c e to a n yp o lic e o ffic e rw h o s to p p e dh is v e h ic le w h ile h e w a s e n g a g e d in
com m erci alact ivi t i es t h at h e w as on su pervi sed rel ease f or drug tr af

f i cki n g so th a t th e o ffic e rc o u lds e a r c h t h e v e h ic le a n dh is p e r s o n . Id
. at 55 8. H o w e ve r , t he
w r i t t en j udgm entdi d not spe c i f i c al l y c ont ai n t he w or ds “ engage d i n co m m er c i al
a ctiviti es.” I

d. N on et h el ess, af

t er revi ew i n g t h e recor d, t h i s C ou rtdeter m i n edN o. 08- 50624

Wenote that there are other unch allenged condition s of supervised rele ase providin g 1 that E lkins shall abide by therules of a m ental health and/or sex offender tre atment pro gra m and also follow any restrictio ns o rt reat ment requirements impose d byhis therapi st. The excision of the ch allenged provisiondoe s not affectt hev al id ityof anyof the remainin g condition s of supervised rele ase. I ndee d, the re maining con ditions may ve ry well support restriction s onhis a ssociation s simil ar to the strick enc onditionif determined to b e appropriatefor his treatment byhis therapi st. 4 th a t t h e p h ra se “tru ck dr ivin g” i n the w ri tten ju d g m e n t a p p l i ed on l y to
c o m m e r c ia l a c tiv ity
. T h u s , it fo u n dn o co n flic t. I d. a t5 58 –59
. In t he i ns t ant
c as e , i ti s c l e art hatt he cha l l e nge d c o ndi t i o n ca nno tbe e nc o m pa s s e d wi t hi n a ny of th e othe r ora l l y pro n ou n ced con d i tio n s . Mi reles t hus o f fe r s t he g o ve r nm e nt
n o s u c c o r . H e re, t h e chal l en ged condit i on i n t h e w ri t t en j u dg m en ti s m ore bu rden som e t h an t h e oralpronou n cem en t s i n t h at itrequi res a pre- ap proved ad u l tto su pervi se E l kins a n y t i m e h e a ssoc i ates w i t h a person l ess t h an 18 yea rs of age . B ec ause t he c ondi t i on i n t he w r i t t en j udgm enti s m or e b urde nso m e t han t ho s e i m po s e d a tt he s e nt e nc i n ghe ar i ng, t he w r i t t e n j udg m e ntc o nf l i c t s w i t h t he
o r a l p r o n o u n c e m e n ts
. B igelow , 46 2 F
. 3 dat 38 3
. T h e d i stri ct cou rt a b u sed i ts d is c r e tio n in im p o s in gth e m o r e b u r d e n s o m e c o n d itio n . W e th e r e fo r e s tr ik e th is
con d i ti on f

rom the j u d gm en t. 1 Fi nal l y, i n hi s br i ef, E l ki ns arg ued t hatt he di st r i c tc our tpl ai nl y e r r ed by im p o sin ga s p e c ia l co n d iti o n of su p e rv ise dre lea se th a t p ro h ib ited h is u se of a
c om put erw i t houtt he pr i orappr ovalof hi s pro bat i on o f

f i c er . M or e s pec i f

i c al l y, h e co n te n d e dt h a t th e c o n d itio n in v o lv e s a g r e a te rd e p r iv a tio n o f lib e r tyth a n is
r e as o nab l y ne c e s s ar y t o a c hi e ve s t at ut o r y go al s . Sub s e que ntt o t he f i l i ng o f t he b r ie fs in t h is c a s e , th is C o u r t r eje c te dth is a r g u m e n t. Uni t e d St at e s v . Br igha m ,

--- F .3d -- --, N o . 0 8 -1 0 3 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 W L 1 3 9 5 8 3 9 , a t * 1 0

– 1 2 (5t h C ir. M a y2 0 , 2 0 0 9 ). A t oral arg u m en t, co u n sel ad m i tted th a t Brigha m p r e c lu d e dre lie f o n th is
c o nt e nt i o n.N o. 08- 50624

5 Fort h e a bove r e as o ns , w e M O D I FYEl ki ns ’ s s e nt e nc e b y s t r i ki ng t he fo llo w in gco n d itio n o f s u p e r v is e dre le a s e : T h e defen da n tshall n ot associ ate w i t h an y chi l d orchi l dren un der th e a g e o f 1 8 e x c e p t in th e p r e s e n c e a n ds u p e r v is io n o f a n a d u lt s pe c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n a t e d i n wr i t i n g b y t h e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r . The proba t i on of

f i cer w i l lnoti f

y t h e d esi gn ated adu l tof ri sks occ asi on ed by the defend an t ’ s c ri m i n alrec ord or pers on alhi st ory or ch a ra cterist i cs. T h e d efen d a n t sh a l lpe rm i t t h e p rob a ti on off i cer to m ak e such n ot i f

i cat i on s. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED a s MODI F I ED
.