Court Opinion

ID: 9662430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:08:37.186875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:28.754027
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20148          Document: 00516869501             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/23/2023

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

                                        No. 23-20148
                                                                               FILED
                                                                         August 23, 2023
                                      Summary Calendar
                                      ____________                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                        Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                              versus

   Quince Aluiso,

                                                Defendant—Appellant.
                       ______________________________

                       Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:20-CR-339-1
                       ______________________________

   Before King, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
           Quince Aluiso was sentenced to seven months of imprisonment and
   36 months of supervised release following the revocation of his term of
   supervision.1 In pronouncing the conditions of supervised release, the

           _____________________
           *
               This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
           1
             Although Aluiso has been released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, his
   appeal is not moot because he is currently serving a term of supervised release. See United
   States v. Vega, 960 F.3d 669, 672-75 (5th Cir. 2020).
Case: 23-20148      Document: 00516869501          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/23/2023

                                    No. 23-20148

   district court stated that Aluiso shall participate in a sex offender treatment
   program and that such program “may include . . . polygraph testing . . . to
   assist in treatment and case monitoring administered by the sex offender
   contractor or their designee.”
            Aluiso appeals the revocation sentence, arguing that the written
   judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement because it includes an
   unpronounced discretionary condition requiring him to submit to “periodic
   polygraph testing at the discretion of the probation officer.” He asserts that
   because there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement and written
   judgment, the unpronounced condition must be stricken from the judgment.
            Because Aluiso did not have an opportunity to object to the
   unpronounced polygraph testing condition in the district court, we review for
   an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Martinez, 47 F.4th 364, 366 (5th
   Cir. 2022). The polygraph testing condition is not required by 18 U.S.C.
   § 3583(d) and, therefore, the district court was required to pronounce it at
   the revocation hearing. See United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559 (5th
   Cir. 2020) (en banc). Further, the condition that appears in the written
   judgment was not set forth in any document adopted by the district court,
   such as a presentence report or a district-wide standing order. Because the
   inclusion of the polygraph testing condition in the written judgment
   broadened the requirements of supervised release that the district court
   orally pronounced, there is a conflict, and the oral pronouncement of the
   sentence controls. See United States v. Prado, 53 F.4th 316, 318 (5th Cir.
   2022).
            Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and
   REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of amending the
   written judgment to conform with the oral pronouncement of the sentence.

                                         2