United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10219 

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Chardavious Hutchinson, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-667-2 

______________________________

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Chardavious Hutchinson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit 

Hobbs Act robbery (count one), Hobbs Act robbery (count six), and using, 

carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of 

violence (count seven). The indictment alleged that Hutchinson and his 

co-defendant conspired to rob Family Dollar stores on August 6 and August 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 12, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10219 Document: 00516999211 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2023
No. 23-10219

2

26, 2019, Dollar General stores on August 28 and August 30, 2019, and a 

Waffle House restaurant on August 30, 2019. Additionally, the indictment 

contained a forfeiture notice, which required Hutchinson to surrender any 

property traceable to the offenses, including a Glock model 23 .40 caliber 

firearm and a Glock model G20 10mm firearm. 

At the sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Hutchinson to 

a total of 219 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised 

release as to all counts, subject to the conditions provided to Hutchinson in 

the presentence report (PSR) and in a standing court order. The district 

court also ordered $8,637.86 in restitution and stated that it would “order 

forfeiture of the firearm and any associated ammunition.” The written 

judgment imposed three years of supervised release as to counts one and six 

and five years of supervised release as to count seven. Further, the written 

conditions of supervised release and the monetary penalties reflected that 

Hutchinson was to pay $8,637.86 in restitution. Finally, the written 

judgment noted that Hutchinson was to forfeit the Glock model 23 and the 

Glock model G20 to the Government. 

On appeal, Hutchinson contends that the district court’s written 

judgment conflicts with its oral pronouncement of the sentence. Specifically, 

he argues that conflicts exist with respect to (1) the length of the term of 

supervised release imposed, (2) the amount of restitution ordered as a 

condition of supervised release, and (3) the forfeiture order. We pretermit 

the question of the standard of review and review for abuse of discretion. See 

United States v. Baez-Adriano, 74 F.4th 292, 297 (5th Cir. 2023); United 

States v. Pursley, 22 F.4th 586, 591 (5th Cir. 2022). 

As to the restitution condition of supervised release, Hutchinson 

argues that the district orally imposed the conditions contained in “Part G of 

the [PSR],” which included a condition ordering Hutchinson to pay 

Case: 23-10219 Document: 00516999211 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2023
No. 23-10219

3

$6,500.86 in restitution. At the sentencing hearing, the district court 

explicitly adopted both the PSR and the PSR addenda and orally pronounced 

$8,637.86 in restitution. These statements clearly evince an intent to impose 

restitution based on the five robberies alleged in the indictment. See United 

States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 232 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the record 

evinces an intent that the condition of supervised release requiring payment 

of restitution would encompass the full amount ordered. See id.

Hutchinson contends that the district court orally ordered forfeiture 

of a singular “firearm” but that the written judgment included two firearms. 

But in his plea agreement, Hutchinson expressly waived his right to make this 

contention: 

The defendant agrees not to contest, challenge, or appeal in 

any way the administrative or Judicial (civil or criminal) 

forfeiture to the United States of any property noted as subject 

to forfeiture pursuant to the plea of guilty, specifically the 

forfeiture of (1) a Glock, model 23, .40 caliber pistol, bearing 

serial number BECY 766; (2) a Glock, model G20, 10 

millimeter pistol, bearing serial number BATL202 [stolen]; 

and (3) $1,417.60 in United States Currency. The defendant 

agrees that this property is subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. 

§ 853(a). The defendant consents to entry of any orders or 

declarations of forfeiture regarding such property and waives 

any requirements (including notice of forfeiture) set out in 19 

U.S.C. §§ 1607- 1609; 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 983, and 985; the 

Code of Federal Regulations; and Rules 11 and 32.2 of the 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

He confirmed this waiver at his rearraignment hearing. Therefore, we will 

dismiss his appeal to the extent it is inconsistent with the foregoing waiver. 

See, e.g., United States v. Meredith, 52 F.4th 984 (5th Cir. 2022).

Finally, the district court orally pronounced a total of three years of 

supervised release as to all counts but imposed five years as to count seven in 

Case: 23-10219 Document: 00516999211 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/12/2023
No. 23-10219

4

its written judgment. The Government concedes that this difference 

amounts to a conflict. See United States v. Moreci, 283 F.3d 293, 299–300 (5th 

Cir. 2002). When the written judgment conflicts with the oral 

pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls. Id. at 299. 

Given the foregoing, Hutchinson’s appeal is DISMISSED IN 

PART. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and

VACATED in part as to the sentence of supervised release for count seven, 

and the case is REMANDED for amendment of the written judgment to 

conform with the oral pronouncement. See, e.g., United States v. FuentesRodriguez, 22 F.4th 504, 506 (5th Cir. 2022). 

Case: 23-10219 Document: 00516999211 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/12/2023