IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 01-20975
01-20976
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN WESLEY MANNING,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-201-1
--------------------
May 10, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this consolidated appeal, John Wesley Manning (Manning)
appeals two judgments by the district court revoking his
supervised release. He argues that the district court erred in
revoking his supervised release based upon a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 930(a), which prohibits the knowing possession of a
dangerous weapon in a federal facility. He argues that, even if
the revocation of his supervised release was proper, the cases
should be remanded so the district court can resentence him
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20975 c/w 01-20976
-2-
without taking into consideration the alleged violation under 18
U.S.C. § 930(a).
The revocation of supervised release was proper as Manning
pleaded true to two other violations of his supervised release.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583; United States Sentencing Guidelines
§§ 7B1.1, p.s., 7B1.3(a)(2), p.s. The 14-month sentences imposed
for each of the supervised release terms revoked were not in
violation of the law or plainly unreasonable. United States v.
Moody, 277 F.3d 719, 720 (5th Cir. 2001); United States
Sentencing Guidelines § 7B1.4(a), p.s. Moreover, a district
court’s imposition of consecutive sentences upon the revocation
of separate terms of supervised release is permissible. United
States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 929 (5th Cir. 2001).
Although the transcript of the revocation hearing indicates
the district court made no finding that Manning violated
18 U.S.C. § 930(a), the written judgment reflects that the
district court made such a finding. The case is therefore
remanded so the district court can conform the written judgment
to its oral pronouncement. See United States v. Martinez,
250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001).
We AFFIRM the district court’s revocation of supervised
release and the ensuing sentence, but we REMAND for the district
court to conform the written judgment to its oral pronouncement.