United States v. Coleman

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 4, 2023
• Docket: 22-20513
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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).