IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40508

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

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 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

January 12, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40508 Document: 00513834068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2017
No. 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 avers that

the special condition of SR requiring him to obtain a general educational development (“GED”) certificate is substantively unreasonable.

Cox contends that there is a conflict between the oral and written judgments because the district court referred to a list of special conditions of SR 

contained in the presentence report (“PSR”) instead of pronouncing each special condition in its oral judgment. The record indicates that the PSR that was 

provided to the parties included the recommendation of mandatory and special 

conditions of SR. Because Cox was aware of the recommended special conditions and had a meaningful opportunity 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, 733–34 (5th Cir. 2013). 

There is no conflict between the oral and written judgments, because the

court referred to the special conditions recommended in the PSR, and the written judgment imposed those 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 pronounce the conditions orally. See id. at 730, 734.

Because Cox did not object in the district court to the special condition

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 the 

special condition is reasonably related to Cox’s need for educational and vocational training. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D). Because there is a reasonable 

relationship between the condition and the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), see

United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269, 275 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. 

 Case: 16-40508 Document: 00513834068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2017
No. 16-40508

3

Salazar, 743 F.3d 445, 451 (5th Cir. 2014), Cox has not demonstrated reversible error, plain or otherwise, in imposition of the GED requirement, see Ellis, 

720 F.3d at 225.

AFFIRMED. 

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