United States v. Overstreet ( 2022 )

Case: 21-30527 Document: 00516262262 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 31, 2022
No. 21-30527
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jahoda Overstreet,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:19-CR-32-1
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jahoda Overstreet pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and
500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine. He was
sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment to be followed by five years of
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-30527 Document: 00516262262 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2022
No. 21-30527
supervised release. In announcing the conditions of supervised release at
sentencing, the district court ordered Overstreet to avoid the excessive use
of alcohol. The special condition in the judgment states that Overstreet is to
abstain from alcohol. On appeal, Overstreet argues that the district court
included a special condition of supervised release in the judgment addressing
alcohol abstinence that is more burdensome than, and therefore conflicts
with, the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. Because Overstreet had
no opportunity to object, our review is for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Grogan, 977 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2020).
“Where there is an actual conflict between the district court’s oral
pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment, the oral
pronouncement controls.” United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551, 557 (5th
Cir. 2006). A conflict arises when the written judgment imposes more
burdensome conditions or broadens the restrictions or requirements of the
orally pronounced conditions. Id. at 558; United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d
378, 383 (5th Cir. 2006). Here, the written judgment’s restriction on the use
of alcohol is more burdensome than the restriction announced at sentencing.
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. In all other respects, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2