Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leslie Ray NEWSOME, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-15
Citations: 89 F. App'x 466
Docket Number: No. 03-20465
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leslie Ray NEWSOME, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 466–466

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leslie Ray NEWSOME, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-20465.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 15, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US, Attorney, Julia Bowen Stern, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A Meyers, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Leslie Ray Newsome (Newsome) appeals his sentence for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base following the revocation of his supervised release. Newsome argues that at the sentencing following the revocation of his supervised release, the district court expressly directed that his supervised release would be "on the same terms as we had before." Newsome further argues that neither the previous supervision order nor the court's oral pronouncement prohibited him from possessing a dangerous weapon. Newsome argues that the condition barring his possession of "any other dangerous weapon" must be stricken from the written judgment because it conflicts with the sentence orally pronounced by the district court.
For the reasons outlined in United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 937-38 (5th Cir.2003), we conclude that the district court's omission of the dangerous weapon prohibition during the oral pronouncement of sentence did not create a conflict with the sentence set forth in the judgment.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.