United States v. Adams

Case: 21-30599 Document: 00516255875 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-30599 March 28, 2022
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Tyquario Derell Adams,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:16-CR-57-1
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Tyquario Derell Adams appeals the judgment on the revocation of his
supervised release. He contends that the written judgment must be corrected
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-30599 Document: 00516255875 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
No. 21-30599
because it conflicts with the district court’s oral pronouncement of his
sentences at the revocation hearing. 1
A district court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence controls over
the written judgment if they conflict. United States v. McGinnis, 956 F.3d
747, 761 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1397 (2021). As the
Government concedes, Adams is correct that the oral pronouncement and
written revocation judgment conflict in the following manner. The district
court clearly stated in its oral pronouncement that the 24-month prison terms
being imposed were to run concurrently with Adams’s state sentence in case
number 20-CR-031077 in the 42nd Judicial District Court in DeSoto Parish,
whereas the written judgment plainly imposes the more burdensome
requirement that they be consecutive to that state sentence.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the district court for the
limited purpose of amending the written revocation judgment to conform
with the oral pronouncement, consistent with this opinion. See McGinnis,
956 F.3d at 761. In all other respects, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
1
In his opening brief, Adams also argued that his revocation sentences are illegal
because their terms of supervised release exceed the statutory maximum. However, his
reply brief indicates that he withdraws that issue. Thus, we do not consider it.
2