IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10378
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
RICHARD STAMPS
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:99-CR-312-1-T
--------------------
December 21, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Stamps appeals his sentence and conditions of
supervised release following sentence imposed for violating
supervised release. He argues that the term of imprisonment he
received after his supervised release was revoked violates the
Double Jeopardy Clause. Stamps concedes that, because he did not
challenge the revocation on these grounds in the district court,
this court reviews it for plain error. See United States v.
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993); United States v. Calverley,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-10378
-2-
37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). This alleged
error does not amount to plain error because this court has not
addressed the issue directly. See Johnson v. United States, 520
U.S. 461, 467-68 (1997); United States v. Webster, 162 F.3d 308,
357 (5th Cir. 1998); Calverley, 37 F.3d at 162.
Stamps’s argument that the sentence he received was in
violation of the Due Process Clause because he was not found
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt fails. See United States v.
Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1996); 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3). Likewise, his argument that the evidence was
insufficient to convict him does not amount to plain error given
the testimony of his probation officer.
Stamps correctly states that the district court’s oral
pronouncement that Stamps had not violated the special condition
of supervised release which required him to participate in a
substance abuse program prevails over the written judgment. See
United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001).
Last, Stamps’s arguments about the conditions of release
imposed in his second term of supervised release are without
merit because the conditions are reasonably related to the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2)(B)-(D);
involve no greater deprivations of liberty than are reasonably
necessary for the purposes set forth in § 3553(a)(2)(B)-(D); and
are be consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by
No. 01-10378
-3-
the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a). United
States v. Coenen, 135 F.3d 938, 940 (5th Cir. 1998); 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(d)(1)-(3).
The revocation of Stamps’s supervised release and sentence
are AFFIRMED. Stamps’s motion to file an out-of-time reply brief
is DENIED.