Court Opinion

ID: 9384794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 00:00:23.83218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:56.498771
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20513        Document: 00516701005             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/04/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                       FILED
                                      No. 22-20513                                   April 4, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                      Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Brandon Coleman,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CR-552-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Brandon Coleman appeals the within-Guidelines sentence of 57
   months in prison and three years of supervised release imposed following his
   conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues that the
   district court did not orally pronounce at sentencing 15 conditions of
   supervision labeled “Standard Conditions of Supervision” in the written

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20513      Document: 00516701005          Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/04/2023

                                    No. 22-20513

   judgment such that those conditions must be stricken from the judgment.
   The Government agrees.
          Because Coleman did not have an opportunity to object to the
   conditions before the district court, we review for an abuse of discretion. See
   United States v. Grogan, 977 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2020). Because the
   conditions at issue are not required under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), they
   constitute discretionary conditions that the district court was required to
   pronounce at sentencing. See United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559 (5th
   Cir. 2020) (en banc). Although these conditions were referenced in the
   appendix to the presentence report and set forth in a standing order of the
   Southern District of Texas, the mere existence of those documents is not
   sufficient to constitute pronouncement, and the district court did not orally
   adopt either one or otherwise refer to the standard conditions. See id. at 560-
   61 & n.5. Because the inclusion of these conditions in the written judgment
   broadens the requirements of supervised release that the district court orally
   pronounced, there is a conflict, and the oral pronouncement of sentence
   controls. United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551, 558 (5th Cir. 2006).
          Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and
   REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of amending the
   judgment to conform with the oral pronouncement of sentence. See id.
   Coleman’s pro se motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is DENIED.
   See United States v. Ogbanna, 184 F.3d 447, 449 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1999).

                                             2