Court Opinion

ID: 9412623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 01:00:32.657383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:16.516351
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40584         Document: 00516839794             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/31/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                             FILED
                                      ____________
                                                                                      July 31, 2023
                                       No. 22-40584                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Roderick DeWayne Chisley,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:22-CR-44-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges:
   Per Curiam: *
          Roderick DeWayne Chisley was convicted after a jury trial of one
   count of conspiracy to transport an illegal alien within the United States and
   two counts of transporting an illegal alien within the United States for private
   financial gain. He now appeals.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40584      Document: 00516839794          Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/31/2023

                                    No. 22-40584

          Chisley argues that the district court erred by admitting expert
   testimony regarding the commercial trucking industry, asserting that the
   district court abdicated its gatekeeping role under Daubert v. Merrell Dow
   Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 594-95 (1993); the witness’s testimony
   did not constitute expert testimony because it was not helpful to the jury; and
   the witness gave improper opinion testimony about Chisley’s state of mind.
   Given the discussion in the record of the relevance of the expert’s testimony
   and his qualifications as an expert in the trucking industry, “[t]his is not an
   instance where the record reflects that no Daubert inquiry took place,” and
   we therefore disagree that the district court abdicated its gatekeeping role.
   United States v. Hodge, 933 F.3d 468, 476 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its
   discretion in finding that the expert’s testimony would be helpful to the jury,
   see Williams v. Manitowoc Cranes, L.L.C., 898 F.3d 607, 615 (5th Cir. 2018),
   and the expert’s testimony regarding the trucking industry’s standards and
   practices was not “the functional equivalent of an opinion whether [Chisley]
   knew he was” transporting aliens, United States v. Ramirez-Velasquez, 322
   F.3d 868, 879 (5th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Farias, 294
   F.3d 657, 663 (5th Cir. 2002).
          Next, Chisley challenges the imposition of a special supervised release
   condition requiring mental health treatment. We agree that the record,
   which states that Chisley does not have a history of emotional or mental
   health problems, does not support the condition, and we vacate the condition
   as plainly erroneous. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); United States v. Gordon, 838
   F.3d 597, 603-05 (5th Cir. 2016).
          The parties correctly assert that despite imposing a three-year
   supervised release term in the judgment, the district court failed to orally
   pronounce a specific term of supervised release. However, because the
   written judgment merely clarifies an ambiguous oral sentence, we decline

                                         2
Case: 22-40584     Document: 00516839794           Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/31/2023

                                    No. 22-40584

   their request to remand to the district court for oral pronouncement of the
   supervised release term. See United States v. Madrid, 978 F.3d 201, 207 (5th
   Cir. 2020); Schurmann v. United States, 658 F.2d 389, 391 (5th Cir. 1981).
          Finally, as the parties assert, the judgment contains two clerical errors
   concerning the statute of conviction. Chisley was indicted and convicted on
   Counts Two and Three for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), but the
   judgment also cites § “1324(a)(1)(v)(II)” under those counts. We assume
   this citation refers to § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II), which relates to aiding and
   abetting, but because the record does not reflect that an aiding and abetting
   theory was presented to the jury, we remand for the purpose of correcting the
   judgment by omitting the citations to § “1324(a)(1)(v)(II)” for Counts Two
   and Three. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
          Accordingly, we VACATE the special condition of supervised
   release requiring mental health treatment and REMAND for the district
   court to correct the clerical errors in the judgment and to modify the special
   conditions of Chisley’s supervised release in a manner consistent with this
   opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          3