Case: 19-11371 Document: 00516169920 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 18, 2022
No. 19-11371 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Mark Hammond,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-117-1
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Defendant-Appellant Mark Hammond pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). He contends that the district court
erred by describing the mental health treatment condition of his supervised
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-11371 Document: 00516169920 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2022
No. 19-11371
release differently in the oral pronouncement of his sentence than in the
written judgment. As this court explained in United States v. Diggles: “The
district court must orally pronounce a sentence to respect the defendant’s
right to be present for sentencing. If the in-court pronouncement differs from
the judgment that later issues, what the judge said at sentencing controls.”
957 F.3d 551, 556-57 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc; citations omitted), cert. denied,
141 S. Ct. 825 (2020).
The pronouncement of the mental health condition at Hammond’s
sentencing hearing nearly identically matches the condition set forth in the
written judgment.1 There is no conflict, so the district court did not run afoul
of Diggles.
Hammond also contends that the district court erred by imposing the
mental health condition because the court did not mention his mental health
at sentencing, and the presentence report did not recommend this condition.
Our review is for plain error because Hammond did not object to the
condition in the district court. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
(2009); Diggles, 957 F.3d at 559-60.
“[C]ourts of appeals have consistently required district courts to set
forth factual findings to justify special [supervised release] conditions.”
United States v. Salazar, 743 F.3d 445, 451 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
1
Compare the oral pronouncement: “You shall participate in mental health
treatment services as directed by the probation officer until successfully discharged, and
those services may include prescribed medications by a licensed physician, and you’ll
contribute to the cost of those services at the rate of at least $25 a month.” with the written
judgment: “The defendant shall participate in mental health treatment services as directed
by the probation officer until successfully discharged, which services may include
prescribed medications by a licensed physician, with the defendant contributing to the costs
of services rendered at a rate of at least $25 per month.”
2
Case: 19-11371 Document: 00516169920 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/18/2022
No. 19-11371
marks omitted). However, we may “affirm a special condition where the
district court’s reasoning can be inferred after an examination of the record.”
United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269, 275 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal
quotation marks and alterations omitted). The district court did not plainly
err by imposing the treatment condition because the presentence report
discussed Hammond’s mental health history sufficiently to justify the
imposition of the condition. See United States v. Howell, 857 F. App’x 200,
200-01 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v. Terrell, 677 F. App’x 938, 940 (5th
Cir. 2017).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3