Court Opinion

ID: 9918460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-13 01:00:42.254122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:39.515617
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40367         Document: 00517031950             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/12/2024

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

                                       No. 23-40367                           FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                   January 12, 2024
                                     ____________                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Eric Desimond Thomas,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:18-CR-1223-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Eric Desimond Thomas appeals the sentence imposed following the
   revocation of his supervised release. He asserts that the district court’s oral
   pronouncement, which did not include a condition of supervised release
   involving alcohol, conflicts with the condition of supervised release in the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40367     Document: 00517031950          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                   No. 23-40367

   written judgment, prohibiting him from using or possessing alcohol. The
   Government agrees with Thomas that there is a conflict.
          Because Thomas could not have known of the discrepancy between
   the oral pronouncement and the written judgment until he received the
   written judgment, our review is for abuse of discretion. See United States v.
   Grogan, 977 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2020). “Where there is an actual conflict
   between the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and the written
   judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” United States v. Mireles, 471
   F.3d 551, 557 (5th Cir. 2006). A conflict arises when the written judgment
   imposes more burdensome conditions or broadens the restrictions or
   requirements of the orally pronounced conditions. Id. at 558; United States
   v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378, 383 (5th Cir. 2006). Here, the written judgment’s
   condition of supervised release prohibiting Thomas from using or possessing
   alcohol is more burdensome than, and therefore conflicts with, the district
   court’s oral pronouncement, which did not include a condition of supervised
   release involving alcohol.
          Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is VACATED in part,
   and the matter is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose
   of conforming the written judgment with the oral pronouncement of sentence
   by removing the unpronounced condition of supervised release involving
   alcohol.   In all other respects, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                        2