United States v. Ferald Holland ( 2020 )

Case: 19-10748 Document: 00515398002 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 28, 2020
No. 19-10748 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
FERALD EUGENE HOLLAND,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-45-1
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In 2019, Ferald Eugene Holland pleaded guilty to possession with intent
to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 96 months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The written judgment
includes a condition requiring that Holland “shall . . . not frequent places where
controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered”
(the “shall-not-frequent” condition). However, the district court’s oral
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-10748 Document: 00515398002 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2020
No. 19-10748
pronouncement of Holland’s sentence did not include or otherwise refer to this
condition.
Holland argues on appeal that the shall-not-frequent condition conflicts
with the district court’s oral pronouncement of his sentence because the
condition was deleted from the Sentencing Guidelines as a standard condition
of supervised release on November 1, 2016, see U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 803,
and because it broadens the requirements of his supervised release. We review
this issue for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378,
381 (5th Cir. 2006). When there is a conflict between a written judgment and
an oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls. Id. In addressing
discrepancies between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment,
“[t]he key determination is whether the discrepancy between the [two] is a
conflict or merely an ambiguity that can be resolved by reviewing the rest of
the record.” United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551, 558 (5th Cir. 2006).
There is no obvious conflict between the oral pronouncement of sentence
and Holland’s written judgment. See United States v. Vasquez-Puente,
922 F.3d 700, 704 (5th Cir. 2019). Rather, because the written judgment
includes other mandatory and standard conditions barring Holland from
associating with individuals engaged in criminal activities and from the
unlawful possession or use of controlled substances, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d);
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(a)(2), (a)(4), (c)(8), the shall-not-frequent condition created an
ambiguity that did not broaden the requirements of supervised release. See
Mireles, 471 F.3d at 558; see also U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 803 (Reason for
Amendment) (explaining that the shall-not-frequent condition “is encompassed
by the ‘standard’ condition that defendants not associate with those they know
to be criminals or who are engaged in criminal activity”). As a result, the
2
Case: 19-10748 Document: 00515398002 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/28/2020
No. 19-10748
district court did not abuse its discretion in including the shall-not-frequent
condition in Holland’s written judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3