IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40500

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

TIMOTHY WAYNE BAILEY,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-1008-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Timothy Bailey appeals his guilty-plea conviction of sexual exploitation 

* 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

January 14, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40500 Document: 00512500135 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2014
No. 13-40500

of a child. He contends that a special condition of supervised release (“SR”) in 

the written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence. 

When a written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement, the

latter controls, and the written judgment must be conformed. United States v. 

Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2006). If, however, the difference merely 

creates an ambiguity, we may examine the entire record to determine the 

intent of the sentencing court. United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 

935 (5th Cir. 2003). 

The district court orally ordered, as a special condition of SR, that Bailey 

participate in “a sex offender treatment program provided by registered sex 

offender treatment providers approved by the United States probation officer.” 

The written judgment contained that condition but added that Bailey “shall 

waive his right of confidentiality in any records for mental health treatment 

imposed as a consequence of this judgment to allow the supervising United 

States Probation Officer to review the defendant’s course of treatment and 

progress with the treatment provider.” In addition, the written judgment provided that “[t]he Court authorizes the release of pertinent information from 

the presentence investigation report that will assist with the mental health 

treatment of the offender, and available mental health evaluations to the mental health provider, as approved by the probation officer.” 

Bailey claims there is a conflict because the oral pronouncement did not 

include the waiver-of-confidentiality provision. The waiver provision is consistent, however, with the district court’s implicit intent that Bailey attend, participate in, and benefit from the sex-offender-treatment program; the probation 

officer’s monitoring of Bailey’s progress could aid in that process and could lead 

to adjustments in the treatment, if warranted. See United States v. Tang, 718 

F.3d 476, 486 (5th Cir. 2013). Thus, the written judgment explains how the 

2

 Case: 13-40500 Document: 00512500135 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/14/2014
No. 13-40500

sex-offender treatment is to be implemented and monitored and adds nothing

that is not implicit in the oral pronouncement and intent directing that Bailey 

receive treatment. See United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363, 365 (5th Cir. 

2002).

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-40500 Document: 00512500135 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/14/2014