Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rolando BERNARDEZ-AVILA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-07
Citations: 609 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 14-41316
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rolando BERNARDEZ-AVILA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 609
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rolando BERNARDEZ-AVILA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41316
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 7, 2015.
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, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rolando Bernardez-Avila challenges the district court's reimposing a $100 special assessment, following revocation of his supervised release. Revocation sentences are reviewed under a plainly unreasonable standard. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4); e.g., United States v. Miller, 684 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.2011). The transcript from the revocation hearing reveals the reimposition of the special assessment is contrary to the oral pronouncement and the evidence presented at the hearing. Therefore, as the Government concedes, a conflict exists between the oral and written judgments. In such a case, the oral pronouncement controls. E.g., United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001).
VACATED IN PART and this matter is REMANDED for amendment of the written judgment by deleting the reimposition of the $100 special assessment.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.