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, used, distributed, or administered”

(the “shall-not-frequent” condition). However, the district court’s oral 

* 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, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10748 Document: 00515398002 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2020
No. 19-10748

2

pronouncement 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 the 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. We review 

this issue for abuse of discretion. See United States 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.” United 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, because the written judgment

includes 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, see 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: 04/28/2020
No. 19-10748

3

district court did not abuse its discretion in including the shall-not-frequent 

condition in Holland’s written judgment.

AFFIRMED.

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