N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JAVIER TOSHIR O TOKUNAGAFUJIGAKI, De fe nda

nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50468

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-00633-C AB -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C athy Ann B e nc ive ngo, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

b e r 14, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, GILM A

N, *** and WARDLAW , C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED DEC 22 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora

l a rgum e nt. Se eFe d . R . App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honora

ble R ona ld Le e Gilm a

n , Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U nite d State s C o urt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.Javie r Tokuna g a -Fujiga ki a ppe a ls these nte nc e im

pose d upon re m a

n d be c a use the distric t c ourt’ s ora l pronounc e m e nt at se nte nc ing did not inc lude a te rm of supe rvise d re le a s e , but thewritte n judgm e nt im pose d a thre e -y e ar te rm

of supe rvise d-re le a s e . Tokuna ga -Fujiga ki a sse rts on a

ppe a l tha t the ora l pronounc e m e nt should c ontrol a nd, a s a re sult, his sente n c e should not inc lude a supe rvise d re le a se te rm . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re ve rse an d re m and. The origina l se nte nc e wa s fully va c ate d, a

nd thus the

origina l te rm

of supe rvise d re le a se wa s a l s o va c ate d. The distric t c ourt’ s ora l pronounc e m e nt a s c orre c tly re porte d de te rm ine s the c orre c t se nte nc e . It is we ll-se ttle d that whe re the re is a disc re pa nc y be twe e n an una m biguous oral pronounc e m e nt of the se nte nc e and the writte n judgm e nt, theora l pronounc e m e nt c ontrols. U nite d State

s v . Munoz-De la Rosa , 495 F.2d 253, 256 (9th C ir. 1974) . He re , the distric t c ourt’ s ora l pronounc e m e nt is una m biguous be c a

use it ha s only

one re a sona

ble re a d ing, se e U nite d State

s v . Alle n , 157 F.3d 661, 667–68 (9th C i r. 1998), a nd the distric t c ourt’ s om ission of the

supe rvise d re le a se te rm

in theora l pronounc e m e nt doe s not le a d to a n a bsurd, irra

tiona l or ille ga l re sult, se e Fe n ne r v . Unite d State s Parole C omm’n , 251 F.3d 782, 786–87 (9th C i r. 2001) (holding tha t the e xc lusion of a

2sta

tutorily -m andat e d pa

role te rm in a se nte nc e re nde re d

the se nte nc e irrationa l, ille g a l, a nd a m biguous). On re m and, thedistric t

c ourt sha l l strikethe c h a lle nge d supe rvise d re le a se te rm an d c onditions in the

writte n judgm e nt to c o nform to theora l pronounc e m e nt of se nte nc e . Unite d State s v . He rnande

z , 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th C ir. 2015), c e rt. de nie d , 136 S. C t. 1204 (2016). RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D w ith instr uc tions .

3