Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Samuel Perez-Gomez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after a prior removal. He appealed his sentence, arguing that the written judgment included language in a special condition of supervised release that the district court did not pronounce at sentencing.
The full condition appeared in the presentence report, which Perez-Gomez and his counsel reviewed before sentencing. Perez-Gomez contended that the added language could subject him to supervised-release conditions if he was not removed after imprisonment, while the district court’s oral remarks indicated that those conditions would apply only if he illegally returned to the United States.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Because Perez-Gomez had notice of the condition through the presentence report and an opportunity to object, the court reviewed his challenge to the unpronounced language for plain error. It concluded that the district court imposed the condition by shorthand reference to the version contained in the presentence report, so including its full text in the written judgment was not plain error.
The court also rejected the claimed conflict over when the supervision conditions would apply, regardless of the standard of review. It characterized the difference between the oral remarks and written judgment as a reconcilable ambiguity and found the written language consistent with the district court’s intent that Perez-Gomez would be removed after completing his prison term.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing court may impose a supervised-release condition by shorthand reference when its full text appears in a presentence report reviewed by the defendant and counsel.
- Failure to object after receiving notice of the condition in the presentence report resulted in plain-error review.
- A reconcilable ambiguity between an oral sentence and written judgment may be resolved by examining the record for the sentencing court’s intent.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that defendants should raise sentencing objections when a proposed condition appears in the presentence report, even if the judge does not recite every word at the hearing. It also distinguishes a true conflict between oral and written sentences from an ambiguity that can be reconciled through the sentencing record.