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

No. 19

- 10748 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. FERALD EUGENE HOLLAND ,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 45

- 1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In 2019, Ferald Eugene Holland pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 96 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The written judgment includes a condition requiring that Holland “shall . . . not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, use d, distributed, or administered ” ( the “shall

- not

- frequent” condition). However, the district court’s oral

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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 28, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10748 Document: 00515398002 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2020No. 19

- 10748

2 pronounceme nt of Holland’s sentence did not include or otherwise refer to this condition. Holland argues on appeal that the shall

- not

- frequent condition conflicts with the district court’s oral pronouncement of his sentence because the condition was deleted from th e Sentencing Guidelines as a standard condition of supervised release on November 1, 2016, see U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 803, and because it broadens the requirements of his supervised release

. W e review this issue for abuse of discretion. See United State s v. Bigelow , 462 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2006). When there is a conflict between a written judgment and an oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls. Id. In addressing discrepancies between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, “[t]he key determination is whether the discrepancy between the [two] is a conflict or merely an ambiguity that can be resolved by reviewing the rest of the record.” Unit ed States v. Mireles , 471 F.3d 551, 558 (5th Cir. 2006). There is no obvious conflict between the oral pronouncement of sentence and Holland’s written judgment. See United States v. Vasquez

- Puente , 922 F.3d 700, 704 (5th Cir. 2019). Rather, b ecause the w ritten judgmen t inclu des other mandatory and standard conditions barring Holland from associating with individuals engaged in criminal activities and from the unlawful possession or use of controlled substances , s ee 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(a)(2), (a)(4), (c)(8) , the shall

- not

- frequent condition created an ambiguity that did not broaden the requirements of supervised release. See Mireles , 471 F.3d at 558 ; see also U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 803 (Reason for Amendment) (explaining that the shall

- not

- frequent condition “is encompassed by the ‘standard’ condition that defendants not associate with those they know to be criminals or who are engaged in criminal activity”)

. As a result, the Case: 19-10748 Document: 00515398002 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2020No. 19

- 10748

3 district court did not abuse its discretion in includin g the shall

- not

- frequent condition in Holland’s written judgment. AFFIRMED

. Case: 19-10748 Document: 00515398002 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/28/2020