Case: 18-41134 Document: 00515384693 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-41134 April 16, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, versus ROLANDO HINOJOSA, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Before SMITH, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges. JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Rolando Hinojosa was convicted of money laundering and two major drug offenses involving multiple kilograms of heroin and cocaine. The district court sentenced him to, among other things, a term of supervised release (“SR”). But the release comes with a string attached: As a special condition, Hinojosa must submit to substance-abuse testing, and he cannot tamper with the testing methods. Hinojosa informs us that there was no good reason to Case: 18-41134 Document: 00515384693 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 No. 18-41134 require testing—and that the anti-tampering rule must be eliminated. We disagree and affirm. I. The court sentenced Hinojosa to a lengthy term in prison, followed by SR. At sentencing, the court imposed the “[s]tandard terms and conditions of [SR], along with substance abuse testing” (emphasis added). Hinojosa did not object. The written judgment stated the condition as follows: You must submit to substance-abuse testing to determine if you have used a prohibited substance, and you must pay the costs of the testing if financially able. You may not attempt to obstruct or tamper with the testing methods. A. Hinojosa contends that the oral pronouncement and written judgment conflict, because the former said nothing about tampering. At sentencing, Hin- ojosa necessarily lacked an opportunity to object on that basis. Accordingly, we review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363, 365 n.1 (5th Cir. 2002). If the oral pronouncement and written judgment conflict, the former con- trols. United States v. De La Pena-Juarez, 214 F.3d 594, 601 (5th Cir. 2000). But not all differences are conflicts. “The key determination is whether the discrepancy . . . 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) (emphases added). If the written judgment broadens the orally pronounced requirements, a conflict exists. Id. There is no conflict. The district court mentioned the requirement of testing at sentencing—it just failed to note that Hinojosa couldn’t tamper with the testing apparatus. Prohibiting Hinojosa from tampering cannot somehow “conflict” with a requirement that he be tested. That prohibition is a logical 2 Case: 18-41134 Document: 00515384693 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 No. 18-41134 piece of any substance-abuse test. “The written judgment simply clarified the meaning of [the condition] by specifying what the [testing] was to entail.” United States v. Truscello, 168 F.3d 61, 63 (2d Cir. 1999). Our caselaw lines up in support. In Warden, 291 F.3d at 364, for exam- ple, the court orally imposed a condition that the defendant ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals