Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo Abel VILLARREAL-MEDINA, also known as Paulo Abel Villarreal-Medina, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-18
Citations: 87 F. App'x 395
Docket Number: No. 03-40034
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo Abel VILLARREAL-MEDINA, also known as Paulo Abel Villarreal-Medina, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 87
Pages: 395–395

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo Abel VILLARREAL-MEDINA, also known as Paulo Abel Villarreal-Medina, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-40034.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, Tony Ray Roberts, US Attorney’s Office, McAllen, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Arturo Villarreal, III, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Pablo Abel Villarreal-Medina entered a guilty plea to one count of transporting an undocumented alien within the United States by means of a motor vehicle. The district court sentenced him to thirty months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Villarreal-Medina asserts that the written judgment of conviction must be reformed to delete a condition of supervised release that prohibits his possession of a dangerous weapon. He asserts that this condition is a special condition of supervised release that conflicts with the district court's oral pronouncement of his sentence.
Villarreal-Medina's argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 938 (5th Cir.2003). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.