United States v. Crown

Case: 20-51039 Document: 00516256277 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 28, 2022 No. 20-51039 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Lana K. Crown, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:19-cr-126-5 Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Lana K. Crown pleaded guilty to a drug crime. She timely appealed. Her attorney moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See also United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Our court denied that motion, holding the case involved one nonfrivolous issue: * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-51039 Document: 00516256277 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 No. 20-51039 “whether the conditions of supervised release identified in the written judgment as ‘Mandatory Conditions’ and ‘Standard Conditions’ constitute discretionary conditions that the district court did not orally pronounce at sentencing.” United States v. Crown, No. 20-51039 (July 23, 2021) (citing United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 556–63 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc)). The parties have now briefed that issue. In the interim, our court has determined that failing to pronounce standard conditions that are contained in a district’s standing order is not error. See United States v. Martinez, 15 F.4th 1179, 1180–81 (5th Cir. 2021). Crown contests four conditions, but she does not contest that each of those conditions is contained in a Western District of Texas standing order. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2