Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amara JUWARA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-23
Citations: 375 F. App'x 996
Docket Number: No. 09-10541
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amara JUWARA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 996–997

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amara JUWARA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10541
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 23, 2010.
Roberta Josephina Bodnar, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Peggy Morris Ronca, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William Charles Fletcher, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Amara Juwara appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. This appeal follows our denial of counsel's motion to withdraw from further representation of Juwara on appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our initial review of the record revealed at least one issue of arguable merit: "whether the oral sentence pronounced by the district court or the written judgment controls." The parties have now briefed that issue.
We have held that "[w]hen a sentence pronounced orally and unambiguously conflicts with the written order of judgment, the oral pronouncement governs." United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir.2000); see also United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305, 1316 (11th Cir.2000) (same). Cf. United States v. Purcell, 715 F.2d 561, 563 (11th Cir.1983) ("When there is an ambiguity in the oral sentencing, as opposed to a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, it is proper to look to the written judgment to ascertain the court's intention."). The remedy in such a situation is a limited remand with instructions for the district court to enter an amended judgment that conforms to its earlier oral pronouncement. See Chavez, 204 F.3d at 1316.
The parties agree that the sentencing transcript reveals that the district court specifically and unambiguously stated that it was imposing a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, while the subsequent written judgment does not conform to that oral pronouncement. Based on our precedent, the oral pronouncement of a 12-month term of imprisonment controls. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand with instructions for the district comb to amend the written judgment to conform to the earlier oral sentence.
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.