Court Opinion

ID: 9909336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 01:00:35.874206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:05.695423
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10219        Document: 00516999211             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/12/2023

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

                                      No. 23-10219
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                             December 12, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Chardavious Hutchinson,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:19-CR-667-2
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Chardavious Hutchinson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit
   Hobbs Act robbery (count one), Hobbs Act robbery (count six), and using,
   carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
   violence (count seven). The indictment alleged that Hutchinson and his
   co-defendant conspired to rob Family Dollar stores on August 6 and August

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10219      Document: 00516999211           Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                     No. 23-10219

   26, 2019, Dollar General stores on August 28 and August 30, 2019, and a
   Waffle House restaurant on August 30, 2019. Additionally, the indictment
   contained a forfeiture notice, which required Hutchinson to surrender any
   property traceable to the offenses, including a Glock model 23 .40 caliber
   firearm and a Glock model G20 10mm firearm.
          At the sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Hutchinson to
   a total of 219 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised
   release as to all counts, subject to the conditions provided to Hutchinson in
   the presentence report (PSR) and in a standing court order. The district
   court also ordered $8,637.86 in restitution and stated that it would “order
   forfeiture of the firearm and any associated ammunition.” The written
   judgment imposed three years of supervised release as to counts one and six
   and five years of supervised release as to count seven. Further, the written
   conditions of supervised release and the monetary penalties reflected that
   Hutchinson was to pay $8,637.86 in restitution.            Finally, the written
   judgment noted that Hutchinson was to forfeit the Glock model 23 and the
   Glock model G20 to the Government.
          On appeal, Hutchinson contends that the district court’s written
   judgment conflicts with its oral pronouncement of the sentence. Specifically,
   he argues that conflicts exist with respect to (1) the length of the term of
   supervised release imposed, (2) the amount of restitution ordered as a
   condition of supervised release, and (3) the forfeiture order. We pretermit
   the question of the standard of review and review for abuse of discretion. See
   United States v. Baez-Adriano, 74 F.4th 292, 297 (5th Cir. 2023); United
   States v. Pursley, 22 F.4th 586, 591 (5th Cir. 2022).
          As to the restitution condition of supervised release, Hutchinson
   argues that the district orally imposed the conditions contained in “Part G of
   the [PSR],” which included a condition ordering Hutchinson to pay

                                          2
Case: 23-10219      Document: 00516999211           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                     No. 23-10219

   $6,500.86 in restitution.    At the sentencing hearing, the district court
   explicitly adopted both the PSR and the PSR addenda and orally pronounced
   $8,637.86 in restitution. These statements clearly evince an intent to impose
   restitution based on the five robberies alleged in the indictment. See United
   States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 232 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the record
   evinces an intent that the condition of supervised release requiring payment
   of restitution would encompass the full amount ordered. See id.
          Hutchinson contends that the district court orally ordered forfeiture
   of a singular “firearm” but that the written judgment included two firearms.
   But in his plea agreement, Hutchinson expressly waived his right to make this
   contention:
          The defendant agrees not to contest, challenge, or appeal in
          any way the administrative or Judicial (civil or criminal)
          forfeiture to the United States of any property noted as subject
          to forfeiture pursuant to the plea of guilty, specifically the
          forfeiture of (1) a Glock, model 23, .40 caliber pistol, bearing
          serial number BECY 766; (2) a Glock, model G20, 10
          millimeter pistol, bearing serial number BATL202 [stolen];
          and (3) $1,417.60 in United States Currency. The defendant
          agrees that this property is subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C.
          § 853(a). The defendant consents to entry of any orders or
          declarations of forfeiture regarding such property and waives
          any requirements (including notice of forfeiture) set out in 19
          U.S.C. §§ 1607- 1609; 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 983, and 985; the
          Code of Federal Regulations; and Rules 11 and 32.2 of the
          Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
   He confirmed this waiver at his rearraignment hearing. Therefore, we will
   dismiss his appeal to the extent it is inconsistent with the foregoing waiver.
   See, e.g., United States v. Meredith, 52 F.4th 984 (5th Cir. 2022).
          Finally, the district court orally pronounced a total of three years of
   supervised release as to all counts but imposed five years as to count seven in

                                          3
Case: 23-10219     Document: 00516999211           Page: 4   Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                    No. 23-10219

   its written judgment.    The Government concedes that this difference
   amounts to a conflict. See United States v. Moreci, 283 F.3d 293, 299–300 (5th
   Cir. 2002).     When the written judgment conflicts with the oral
   pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls. Id. at 299.
          Given the foregoing, Hutchinson’s appeal is DISMISSED IN
   PART. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and
   VACATED in part as to the sentence of supervised release for count seven,
   and the case is REMANDED for amendment of the written judgment to
   conform with the oral pronouncement. See, e.g., United States v. Fuentes-
   Rodriguez, 22 F.4th 504, 506 (5th Cir. 2022).

                                         4