Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos GIL-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-03
Citations: 605 F. App'x 439
Docket Number: No. 14-40957
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos GIL-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 605
Pages: 439–440

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos GIL-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40957
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 3, 2015.
Amy Howell Aianiz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Carlos Gil-Perez appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Specifically, he challenges the reimposition of a $100 special assessment in the district court's written judgment.
We generally review revocation sentences under the "plainly unreasonable" standard of 18 U.S.C. § 3742. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.2011). A review of the transcript of the instant revocation hearing reflects that the district court's reimposition of the special assessment in the written judgment is contrary to its oral pronouncement and to evidence presented at the hearing. Therefore, as the government concedes, a conflict exists between the oral and written judgments. In such a situation, the oral pronouncement controls. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001). We therefore modify the district court's judgment, striking the reimposed $100 special assessment so that the written judgment conforms with the oral pronouncement, and we affirm the judgment as modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; United States v. Orduna-Perales, 530 Fed.Appx. 355, 356 (5th Cir.2013).
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.