Court Opinion

ID: 9890033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 00:00:25.924036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:18.562462
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50420        Document: 00516927760             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/11/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50420
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               October 11, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jody Charles Thomas,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:09-CR-94-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jody Charles Thomas was convicted following a jury trial of
   conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack
   cocaine (Count 1), maintaining a drug premises (Counts 2, 4-6), maintaining
   a drug premises within 1,000 feet of a school (Count 3), money laundering
   (Count 7), bank fraud (Count 10), aggravated identity theft (Count 11),

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50420        Document: 00516927760        Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/11/2023

                                    No. 22-50420

   conspiracy to retaliate against a witness (Count 12), aiding and abetting
   retaliation against a witness (Count 13), and aiding and abetting the
   possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (Count 14).
   Following this court’s grant of authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C.
   § 2255 motion based on United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019),
   Thomas filed a successive § 2255 motion arguing that his conviction on
   Count 14 should be vacated, which the district court granted. The district
   court then vacated his sentence, and Thomas was ultimately resentenced to
   the same total sentence of 504 months and six years of supervised release.
          On appeal, Thomas first argues that there is a clerical error in his
   written judgment as to his conviction for Count 13. Specifically, he asserts
   that the written judgment includes a citation to 18 U.S.C. § 371 for the Count
   13 offense, while the superseding indictment charged him with aiding and
   abetting in the retaliation against a witness in violation of 18 U.S.C.
   §§ 1513(b)(2) and 2. We agree with the parties that there is a clerical error in
   Thomas’s written judgment that may be corrected under Federal Rule of
   Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Cooper, 979 F.3d 1084, 1088-89
   (5th Cir. 2020).
          Thomas next argues that a “search” condition of his supervised
   release should be excised from the written judgment because the language of
   the condition in the written judgment was more onerous than what was
   pronounced at his resentencing, and he had no notice or opportunity to
   object. The search condition is not required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and is
   therefore discretionary and required pronouncement. See United States v.
   Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). At the sentencing
   hearing, the district court stated that it was imposing “the search condition
   of supervision within the Western District of Texas.” The district court’s
   reference to the search condition, which is contained in a well-known district-
   wide order, was sufficient to provide advance notice of the condition and to

                                          2
Case: 22-50420          Document: 00516927760        Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/11/2023

                                      No. 22-50420

   constitute oral pronouncement. See id. at 561. Therefore, there is no conflict
   between the written and oral judgments. See United States v. Martinez, 15
   F.4th 1179, 1181 (5th Cir. 2021)
          Lastly, Thomas requests that this court consider several of the
   ineffective assistance of counsel claims presented in his initial § 2255 motion
   filed in 2012. He does not cite to any relevant circuit authority or legal
   standards in support of these claims and has thus abandoned these claims.
   See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010). Further,
   to the extent Thomas seeks our authorization to file a successive § 2255
   motion, his motion is DENIED, as his proposed successive claims are
   barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). See In re Bourgeois, 902 F.3d 446, 447-48
   (5th Cir. 2018) (holding that § 2255(h) incorporates § 2244(b)(1)’s strict
   relitigation bar).
          For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district
   court and REMAND the case for the limited purpose of correcting the
   written judgment to excise the citation to 18 U.S.C. § 371 from Count 13. See
   Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

                                           3