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

No. 16

- 40508 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

–

Appellee ,

v ersus MICHAEL WARREN COX, JR. , Defendant

– Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 45

- 1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Michael Cox, Jr., pleaded guilty of possession of a firearm after having

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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances se t forth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED January 12, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40508 Document: 00513834068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2017No. 16

- 40508

2 been convicted of a felony and was sentenced to 87 months in prison and three years of supervised release (“SR”) . On appeal, Cox contends that we must vacate four special conditions of SR because there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment . He further a ver s that the special condition of SR requiring him to obtain a g eneral e ducational d evel

opment ( “ GED ” ) certificate is substantively unreasonable

. Cox contends that there is a conflict between the oral and written judg

ments because the district court referred to a list of special conditions of SR

con tained in the p resentence r eport ( “ PSR ” ) instead of pronouncing each spe

cial conditi on in its oral judgment. The record indicates that the PSR that was provided to the parties included the recommendation of man datory and special conditions of SR . Because Cox was aware of the recom mended special condi

tions and had a meaningful opportu nity to object to them at the hearing, but failed to do so, the plain

- error standard of review applies. See United States v. Rouland , 726 F.3d 728, 73 3

– 34 (5th Cir. 2013). There is no conflict between the oral and written judgments , because the
court r eferred to the special conditions recommended in the PSR, and the writ

ten judgment imposed th ose conditions. Because Cox was aware of them and had an opportunity to object, he has not shown that his substantial rights were affected by the failure to pron ounce the conditions orally

. See id. at 730, 7 34.

Bec ause Cox did not object in the district court to the special condi tion requiring him to obtain a GED , review is limited to plain error. See United State v. Ellis , 720 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2013). The record reveals that t he

spe cial condition is reasonably related to Cox’s need for educational and voca

tion al training. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D). Because there is a rea son able relationship between the condition and the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), s ee United States v. Caravayo , 809 F.3d 269, 275 (5 th Cir. 2015); United States v. Case: 16-40508 Document: 00513834068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2017No. 16

- 40508

3 Salazar , 743 F.3d 445, 451 (5th Cir. 2014) , Cox has not dem onstrated reversi

ble error, plain or otherwise, in imposition of the GED re quirement , s ee Ellis , 720 F .3d at 225

. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-40508 Document: 00513834068 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/12/2017