United States v. Fabian Gonzalez Mora ( 2020 )

Case: 19-40665 Document: 00515616892 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 27, 2020
No. 19-40665 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Fabian Gonzalez Mora, also known as Fabian Mora
Gonzalez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:16-CR-481-1
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Fabian Gonzalez Mora pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with
the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, and he was
sentenced to 135 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-40665 Document: 00515616892 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2020
No. 19-40665
release. The district court’s written judgment imposed two special
conditions of supervised release that Gonzalez Mora now challenges: one
requiring him to report to the nearest probation office immediately if he
returns to the United States and another directing that active supervision
would automatically reactivate upon his reporting.
We review for abuse of discretion because these written special
conditions were neither mandatory nor orally pronounced at sentencing. See
United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559-63 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc),
petition for cert. filed (U.S. Sept. 24, 2020) (No. 20-5836); see also United
States v. Huor, 852 F.3d 392, 397 (5th Cir. 2017). The district court abused
its discretion by imposing these two special conditions in the written
judgment because they were more burdensome than the special conditions it
announced during the sentencing hearing. See Diggles, 957 F.3d at 559-63;
United States v. Mudd, 685 F.3d 473, 480 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v.
Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378, 380 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is VACATED IN
PART, and the matter is REMANDED to the district court for the limited
purpose of conforming the written judgment with the oral pronouncement of
sentence.
2