### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40500 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

− Appellee ,

v ersus 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. 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: 01/14/2014No. 13

- 40500
of a child. He contends that a special condition of supervised release (“SR”) i n the written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence. When a written judgment conflic ts 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 det ermine 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 offen der treatment providers approved by the United States probation officer.” The written judgment contained th at condition but added that Bailey “shall waive his r ight 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
prog ress with the treatment provider.” In addition, the written judgment pro

vided that “[t]he Court authorizes the release of pertinent information from the presentence investigation report that will assist with the mental health treat ment of the offender, and available mental health evaluat ions to the men

tal 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 consis

tent , however, with the district court’s implicit intent that Bailey attend, parti

ci pate in , and benefit from the sex

- offender

- treatment pro gram; 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 judg ment explains how the

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

- 40500

sex - offender treatment is to be implemented and monitored and adds nothing that is not implicit in the oral pronounce ment and intent directing that Bailey receive treatment. S e e 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