United States v. Leobardo Vasquez-Ruiz

Case: 17-40249 Document: 00514241810 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-40249 FILED November 17, 2017 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LEOBARDO VASQUEZ-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:16-CR-1348-1 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Leobardo Vasquez-Ruiz pleaded guilty to one count of illegally reentering the United States following deportation and was sentenced to 37 months in prison and three years of supervised release. He contends that the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence conflicts with its subsequent written judgment. Specifically, although the district court advised Vasquez- Ruiz at sentencing that he was “going to get deported” and could not return to * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-40249 Document: 00514241810 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2017 No. 17-40249 the United States illegally, the district court did not state that Vasquez-Ruiz “must immediately report, continue to report, or surrender” to immigration officials upon his release from prison, as required by the written judgment. Vasquez-Ruiz maintains that because this “report or surrender” special condition was not orally pronounced at his sentencing, this court should vacate the judgment in part and remand so that the district court can conform its written judgment to its oral pronouncement of sentence. Although the appendix to Vasquez-Ruiz’s presentence report contained the special condition that he “immediately report” to immigration officials, the district court did not ask any targeted questions about supervised-release conditions during the sentencing hearing. Vasquez-Ruiz, thus, did not have a meaningful opportunity to object to the challenged special condition at his sentencing hearing. Consequently, our review is for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363, 365 n.1 (5th Cir. 2002). “[W]e have long held that a defendant has a constitutional right to be present at sentencing.” United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 852 (5th Cir. 2003) (footnote omitted). Therefore, when a conflict exists between the sentence orally pronounced in court and a later written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. See Warden, 291 F.3d at 365. “The key determination is whether the discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment 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) (citation omitted). “If the written judgment broadens the restrictions or requirements of supervised release from an oral pronouncement, a conflict exists.” Id. (citations omitted). There is no conflict between the written judgment and oral pronouncement if the judgment includes supervised release conditions that are 2 Case: 17-40249 Document: 00514241810 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2017 No. 17-40249 mandatory, standard, or recommended by the ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals