IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10861

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

GEORGE HENRY MARK,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-24

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After violating the terms of his supervised release, George Henry Mark 

was sentenced to 18-months’ imprisonment and 18-months’ supervised release. 

At his revocation hearing, the district court ordered Mark to participate in drug 

treatment. He asserts the subsequent written judgment improperly added a 

special condition that he submit to drug testing as part of the drug-treatment 

* 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

April 28, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10861 Document: 00512609406 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2014
No. 13-10861

program, thereby broadening the drug-treatment condition announced at his 

revocation hearing. 

Because Mark could not have objected at the revocation hearing to the 

condition imposed in the subsequent judgment, review is for abuse of 

discretion. E.g., United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 935 (5th Cir. 

2003). “The key determination is whether the discrepancy between the oral 

pronouncement and the written judgment is a conflict or merely an ambiguity 

that can be resolved by reviewing the rest of the record.” United States v. 

Mireles, 471 F.3d 551, 558 (5th Cir. 2006). A conflict arises if the written 

judgment differs from the orally pronounced sentence by either adding a

special condition or broadening a condition. See id.; Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 

at 936. Where there is a conflict, the district court is required to reform the 

judgment by deleting the special condition not pronounced orally. Mireles, 471 

F.3d at 558. 

Drug testing is both a special condition and a mandatory condition of 

Mark’s supervised release. The mandatory condition, which he does not 

challenge, requires him to “submit to one drug test within 15 days of release 

from imprisonment and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as directed 

by the probation officer”. (Emphasis added.) In announcing the special 

condition, the district court ordered Mark to “participate in a program 

approved by the United States Probation Office for the treatment of narcotic, 

drug, or alcohol dependency”. The written judgment mandated the drugtreatment program “include testing for the detection of substance use or 

abuse”. Because drug testing is generally a component of drug-treatment 

programs and a properly imposed mandatory condition of Mark’s supervised 

release, the judgment’s inclusion of this requirement, in the context of the 

special condition that he participate in drug treatment, did not add a new 

2

 Case: 13-10861 Document: 00512609406 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2014
No. 13-10861

condition or broaden the special condition pronounced orally. See, e.g., Mireles, 

471 F.3d at 558–59; United States v. Gray, No. 13-10242, 2013 WL 6247433 

(5th Cir. 4 Dec. 2013) (unpublished), petition for cert. filed, No. 13-8996 (U.S. 4 

Mar. 2014). 

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-10861 Document: 00512609406 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/28/2014