Case: 20-10835 Document: 00515946524 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-10835 July 21, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Chad Dewayne Mosley,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-363-5
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Chad Dewayne Mosley pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with
the intent to distribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 230
months of imprisonment and a four-year term of supervised release. He
contends that the district court abused its discretion by including various
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10835 Document: 00515946524 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2021
No. 20-10835
conditions of supervised release in the written judgment that it failed to orally
pronounce at sentencing and seeks remand to permit the district court to
reform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement.
Conditions of supervised release are part of a defendant’s sentence
and must be pronounced unless their imposition is required by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(d). United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir. 2020), cert.
denied 141 S. Ct. 825 (2020). A district court may satisfy the pronouncement
requirement through reference to a document setting forth proposed
supervised release conditions. See Diggles, 957 F.3d at 560-63.
At sentencing, the district court adopted the standard conditions
recommended by U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c). In addition, Mosley signed an order
which set forth additional terms of supervised release and referred to the
standard conditions recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
The written judgment in this case included, relevant here, 16 conditions
under the heading “Standard Conditions of Supervision.” As they are not
mandatory, pronouncement was required. Eleven of those conditions mirror
the standard conditions recommended by § 5D1.3(c). However, five
conditions numbered 3, 5, 7, 10, and 11 in the judgment differ from the
standard conditions recommended by § 5D1.3(c) of the applicable version of
the Guidelines, which the Government concedes. The inclusion of these
conditions in the written judgment creates a conflict with the oral
pronouncement. See United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 852-53 (5th Cir.
2003). The remedy is to vacate the judgment in part and remand for excision
of the conflicting conditions. See, e.g., United States v. Mudd, 685 F.3d 473,
480 (5th Cir. 2012).
Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part
and VACATED in part and REMANDED for amendment of the written
judgment to conform with the oral pronouncement of sentence.
2