Court Opinion

ID: 9369838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 19:00:28.816181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:17.557115
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40476         Document: 00516640235             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/09/2023

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

                                      ____________                                    FILED
                                                                                February 9, 2023
                                       No. 22-40476                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                 Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Douglas Wayne Tatum,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:20-CR-1661-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Douglas Wayne Tatum appeals the sentence imposed following his
   guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to import 500 grams or more of
   methamphetamine. He argues that a conflict exists between the written
   judgment and the oral pronouncement of his supervised release conditions,
   specifically with certain discretionary standard and special conditions in the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40476      Document: 00516640235           Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                     No. 22-40476

   written judgment that were not orally pronounced at sentencing. These
   conditions were not mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), so the district court
   was required to pronounce them. See United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551,
   559 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc).
          Regarding Tatum’s challenge to 14 of the 15 “standard” conditions,
   the conditions were listed in the appendix to his presentence report
   (PSR), and they are also set forth in a standing order of the Southern District
   of Texas. At sentencing, the district court affirmed with Tatum that he
   reviewed the PSR with his counsel, and it ordered Tatum to “comply with
   the standard conditions adopted by the Court.”             The district court’s
   pronouncement constituted a shorthand reference effectively adopting the
   district court’s standing order that contained those conditions. See United
   States v. Vargas, 23 F.4th 526, 528 (5th Cir. 2022); United States v. Grogan,
   977 F.3d 348, 353 (5th Cir. 2020). Tatum cannot show that the district court
   erred, plainly or otherwise, because the court fulfilled its pronouncement
   requirement for the standard conditions, and there is no conflict with the
   written judgment. See Vargas, 23 F.4th at 528-29; Diggles, 957 F.3d at 559-
   60.
          Tatum next challenges certain “special” conditions included in his
   written judgment. The special conditions require Tatum to 1) “participate
   in an outpatient alcohol and substance-abuse treatment program” and “pay
   the costs of the program, if financially able”; 2) “not possess any controlled
   substances without a valid prescription”; 3) “submit to substance-abuse
   testing” and “pay the costs of the testing if financially able”; 4) “not use or
   possess alcohol”; and 5) “not knowingly purchase, possess, distribute,
   administer, or otherwise use any psychoactive substances.” He does not
   challenge the first special condition.

                                            2
Case: 22-40476      Document: 00516640235          Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                    No. 22-40476

          These conditions are listed in the district court’s standing order as
   conditions that a sentencing judge “may apply” to a defendant at sentencing,
   and Tatum’s PSR recommended the conditions in the appendix. However,
   while the district court affirmed that Tatum and his counsel reviewed the
   PSR, the district court did not expressly adopt the PSR or reference or
   address any of the special conditions challenged here. Accordingly, our
   review is for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gomez, 960 F.3d 173,
   179 (5th Cir. 2020).
          The second and third special conditions do not conflict with the
   district court’s pronouncement because they are consistent with the
   mandatory conditions imposed and with the district court’s intent that
   Tatum obtain drug and alcohol treatment. See United States v. Vasquez-
   Puente, 922 F.3d 700, 703 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d
   551, 558 (5th Cir. 2006). Tatum was already prohibited under § 3583(d) from
   unlawfully possessing a controlled substance. See also Tex. Health
   & Safety Code § 481.117 (criminalizing possession of controlled
   substances without a prescription). He was also required under § 3583(d) to
   submit to periodic drug testing, and the district court orally pronounced that
   Tatum was required “to participate in a drug and alcohol treatment program
   outpatient” while on supervised release.        Therefore, the drug testing
   condition and the requirement to pay for testing do not conflict with the oral
   pronouncement of sentence. See Mireles, 471 F.3d at 558; United States v.
   Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 852-54 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d
   363, 365 (5th Cir. 2002).
          The fourth and fifth special conditions likewise do not create a conflict
   between the oral pronouncement and written judgment. See Mireles, 471 F.3d
   at 558. Where, as here, a district court orally pronounces a release condition
   requiring a defendant to take part in drug treatment, other unpronounced

                                          3
Case: 22-40476     Document: 00516640235         Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                  No. 22-40476

   conditions that are consistent with that condition do not create a conflict
   between the oral and written judgments. See Vega, 332 F.3d at 852.
         AFFIRMED.

                                       4