Court Opinion

ID: 9412552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-31 19:01:05.49929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:37.569868
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13524    Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 07/31/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13524
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       PASQUALE O. HOLT,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00167-RAL-MAP-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13524     Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 07/31/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-13524

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Meghan Ann Collins, appointed counsel for Pasquale Holt
       in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further
       representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders
       v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
              “When a sentence pronounced orally and unambiguously
       conflicts with the written order of judgment, the oral pronounce-
       ment governs.” United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir.
       2000). The remedy for a conflict between an orally pronounced
       sentence and the written judgment is a limited remand with in-
       structions to amend the judgment to conform to the oral pro-
       nouncement. United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305, 1316 (11th Cir.
       2000).
              Here, the written judgment unambiguously contradicts the
       oral pronouncement. At Holt’s revocation hearing, the district
       court explicitly stated that Holt’s special conditions of supervised
       release were to carry over without any modification, but the writ-
       ten judgment imposes a special condition prohibiting Holt from
       having direct contact with minors and from entering areas where
       children congregate that was not present in his prior judgments.
              Aside from this clerical error, our independent review of the
       entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit
       of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the
       entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion
USCA11 Case: 22-13524    Document: 52-1    Date Filed: 07/31/2023   Page: 3 of 3

       22-13524             Opinion of the Court                     3

       to withdraw is GRANTED, Holt’s revocation of supervised release
       and sentence are AFFIRMED, and we REMAND to the district
       court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to con-
       form with the oral pronouncement as to Holt’s special conditions
       of supervised release.