United States v. Coleman ( 2023 )

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).
2