Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40690 Su m m ar yC al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. ED I TH LU N A- M U N I Z , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 09- C R

- 147- 1

B ef ore JO L L Y , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * E di t h L una-M u n i z appeal s f r om herc onvi c t i on o f t r anspo r t i ng an u n docu m en t ed ali en . Sh e chal len ges t h e condit i on of her sup ervi sed rel ease
r e q u i r i n gh e rt o p a r t i c i p a t e i n ame n t a lh e a l t h p r o g r a m. AtLuna- M uni z ’ s s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng, t he di s t r i c tc o u rtst at e d t hats he
w o ul d b e s ubj e c tt o the “ [ s ] t and ar d t e r m s a nd c o ndit i o ns o f s upe r vi s i o n, a l o ng w i t h d r u gt r e a t me n t , me n t a lh e a l t h c o u n s e l i n g , p a r e n t i n gp r o g r a m, n i g h t t i me rest ri ct i on of

10: 00 p
. m . t o 6: 00 a. m . ” T h e w ri t t en j u dg m en t , h ow ever, orders her United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 24, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-40690 Document: 00511034852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 40690

2 t o “ pa rt i ci pa t e i n a m en t alhea l t h program as deem ed n ecess ary an d ap proved b yth e p r o b a tio n o ffic e r .” I n Un i t ed S t ate s v. L opez- Mu xt ay, N o. 08- 41179, 2009 W L 30 1 6 2 6 3 , *1 ( 5 th C ir . S e p t. 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 ) (u n p u b lis h e d), w e v a c a te da n dre m a n d e das e n t e n c e in
w h i ch the w ri t t en j u dg m en tcon t ai n ed l an gu age i den t i calt o t h e l an gu age u sed i n L una- M uni z’ s c as e a nd i n w hi c h t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s or alj udgm entw as s i m i l ar to L u n a -M u n i z’s. Id

. W e r e m and e d t hatc as e f o rc l ar i f i c at i o n b e c aus e “ [t] he di st ri ctcourt ’ s w ri t t en j u dg m en ti s un cl ear rega rdi n g w h et h er t h e di st ri ctcourt i nt e nde d t o g r antLo pe z ’ s pr o ba t i o n o f f i c e r t he aut ho r i t y no to nl y t o i m pl e m e nt t he c ondi t i on but t o det er m i ne w het her Lopez sho ul d or shou l d n ot underg o
m en tal he a l th treatm en t on su p erv i sed releas e.” Id;se e also Uni t e d S t at e s v. Bige lo w, 462 F
. 3d 378 , 381 ( 5th C i r. 20 0 6 ) (h o ld i n g t h at w h en t h e sentence i m pos ed o r al l y by t he di st r i c tcour tconf l i c t s w i t h t he w r i t t en j udgm ent , t he o r al pron ou n cem en tcontr ol s)

. W e now v a cat e t h e j u dg m en ti n L u n a- M u n i z’ s c ase andr e m and t he c as e f o r r e s e nt e nc i ng s o t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tm ayc l ar i f y t he cond i t i on of

s u p e rv i sed rel ease at i ssue. W e express no opi n i on on the proper resol u t i on of

t h e i ssue. VA CA T ED A ND R EMANDE D. Case: 09-40690 Document: 00511034852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2010