Court Opinion

ID: 9895708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 16:01:20.8404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:54.943401
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20067         Document: 00516959696             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/07/2023

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

                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                November 7, 2023
                                       No. 23-20067                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Brenda Yadira Perez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-532-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Brenda Yadira Perez appeals the sentence imposed following her
   guilty-plea conviction, arguing that several conditions of supervised release
   in the written judgment conflict with the oral pronouncement at sentencing.

         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20067       Document: 00516959696             Page: 2      Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                        No. 23-20067

   We agree that a conflict exists, as does the Government. Accordingly, we
   vacate the sentence in part and remand. 1
            To impose conditions of supervised release not mandated by 18
   U.S.C. § 3583(d), a district court must pronounce them at sentencing.
   United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). “If the
   written judgment broadens the restrictions or requirements of supervised
   release from an oral pronouncement, a conflict exists.” United States v.
   Mireles, 471 F.3d 551, 558 (5th Cir. 2006). In such cases the judgment must
   be amended to conform to the oral sentence. Id.
            The written judgment in this case includes 15 “standard conditions”
   that are not required by § 3583(d) and were not pronounced at sentencing.
   Perez challenges standard conditions 2 through 15. Because she did not have
   an opportunity to object in the district court, our review is for abuse of
   discretion. See United States v. Martinez, 987 F.3d 432, 434–35 (5th Cir.
   2021).
            As the Government concedes, standard conditions 2 through 9 and 11
   through 15 conflict with the oral pronouncement of sentence and must
   therefore be stricken. See Mireles, 471 F.3d at 558. Standard condition 10—
   which prohibits Perez from owning or possessing a firearm, ammunition,
   destructive device, or dangerous weapon—is partially consistent with the
   mandatory condition that she must not commit other crimes. See 18 U.S.C.
   §§ 922(g)(1), 921(a)(3); see also § 3583(d).               However, because this
   prohibition creates a conflict to the extent it encompasses lawful conduct, it
   must be modified. See Mireles, 471 F.3d at 558.

            _____________________
            1
            Judge Oldham adheres to his view that our precedents are deeply flawed and
   should be reconsidered. See United States v. Griffin, No. 21-50294, 2022 WL 17175592, at
   *7–8 (5th Cir. Nov. 23, 2022) (Oldham, J., dissenting).

                                              2
Case: 23-20067    Document: 00516959696         Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                 No. 23-20067

         For these reasons, the judgment is VACATED IN PART, and we
   REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of conforming the
   judgment to the oral pronouncement of sentence.

                                      3