Case: 19-13775 Date Filed: 10/05/2020 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-13775
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:18-cr-00469-ACA-GMB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DENNIS JAMES HUDSON, JR.,
a.k.a. D.J. Zygi Hudson,
a.k.a. Zygi Hudson,
a.k.a. Tyler Johnson,
a.k.a. Brandon McDaniels,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(October 5, 2020)
Case: 19-13775 Date Filed: 10/05/2020 Page: 2 of 3
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis James Hudson Jr. appeals his sentence for distributing child
pornography. 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). Hudson argues that we should vacate and
remand for resentencing because the district court erred when it announced his
sentence, even though it timely corrected the error in its written judgment, see Fed.
R. Crim. P. 35(a). Because our precedent, United States v. Joseph,
743 F.3d 1350,
1356 (11th Cir. 2014), holds that the written judgment governs when the oral
pronouncement is contrary to law, we affirm the written judgment.
Hudson pleaded guilty to five counts of producing child pornography, 18
U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e), and one count of distributing child pornography
, id.
§ 2252A(a)(2), in exchange for the dismissal of five additional counts of
distributing child pornography
, id. Hudson’s presentence investigation report
provided an adjusted offense level of 43 that, with a criminal history category of I,
resulted in an advisory guideline sentence of imprisonment for life. The
presentence report also stated that Hudson faced statutory maximum penalties of
30 years for each offense of production and 20 years for his offense of distribution.
Hudson requested a total sentence of 30 years of imprisonment.
At sentencing, on September 12, 2019, the district court adopted the factual
statements and calculations in the presentence report and announced it was
2
Case: 19-13775 Date Filed: 10/05/2020 Page: 3 of 3
sentencing Hudson to five concurrent terms of 30 years for his crimes of
production and to a consecutive term of 25 years for his crime of distribution. On
September 20, 2019, the district court issued a written judgment that “imprisoned
[Hudson] for a term of 30 years concurrently . . . [for the crimes of production
charged in] Counts 1–5, and 20 years . . . [for the crime of distribution charged in]
Count 11, to run consecutively to Counts 1-5.”
We affirm the written judgment, which imposed a lawful sentence. There is
no dispute that the district court erred when it announced a sentence for Hudson’s
crime of distribution that exceeded his statutory maximum penalty by five years.
See 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1). Hudson argues that we should vacate and remand for
resentencing based on the longstanding rule that, “[w]hen a sentence pronounced
orally and unambiguously conflicts with the written order of judgment, the oral
pronouncement governs.” United States v. Bates,
213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir.
2000). But Hudson “cannot avail himself of [that] general rule” because the “oral
pronouncement [of his sentence was] contrary to law.”
Joseph, 743 F.3d at 1353.
And we need not remand because the district court corrected its obvious error, as it
was permitted to do “[w]ithin 14 days after sentencing,” by entering a written
judgment that sentenced Hudson to the statutory maximum penalty of 20 years of
imprisonment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a).
AFFIRMED.
3
