United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41874 c/w
No. 06-40003
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EFRAIN YBARRA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:02-CR-181-2
USDC No. 2:03-CR-409-ALL
--------------------
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Efrain Ybarra appeals the sentences imposed after the
district court revoked the terms of supervised release that
Ybarra was serving in connection with his conviction of
misprision of possession with intent to distribute marijuana
(USDC No. 2:02-CR-181-2) and his conviction of escape from the
federal prison where he was confined for the misprision
conviction (USDC No. 2:03-CR-409-ALL). Ybarra argues that the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41874 c/w
No. 06-40003
-2-
district court’s written judgments of revocation conflict with
the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence.
After revoking Ybarra’s terms of supervised release in both
cases, the district court imposed a 12-month imprisonment term in
both cases. At the sentencing hearing the district court
specifically stated that the imprisonment terms were to run
concurrently. However, the written judgment in the escape case
states that the term is to run consecutively to the imprisonment
term in the misprision case. The written judgment in the
misprision case is silent regarding whether the term is
concurrent or consecutive. Thus, the district court’s oral
pronouncement of concurrent sentences conflicts with the written
judgments, which, when read together, require the imprisonment
terms to run consecutively.
Therefore, because the language of the district court’s oral
pronouncement of sentence conflicts with its written judgments
with regard to the concurrent nature of the sentences, the cases
are remanded for the district court to amend the written
judgments to conform to the district court’s oral pronouncement
of sentence. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942
(5th Cir. 2001).
REMANDED.