U.S. v. Martinez
Decision Date | 08 May 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 00-40565,00-40565 |
Citation | 250 F.3d 941 |
Parties | (5th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALFREDO MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Before GARWOOD, HALL,1 and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Martinez pleaded guilty to possession of less than 50 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(D). At his 15 May 2000 sentencing hearing, the court imposed a 36-month term of imprisonment and a four-year term of supervised release; and, in lieu of a fine, the court ordered him to serve 100 hours of community service during his first year of supervised release. No other conditions of supervised release were mentioned.
In the district court's subsequent written judgment, the court noted another condition of release in addition to the 100 hours of community service requirement. Under the heading "Special Conditions of Supervision," the court wrote:
The defendant shall participate in a program, inpatient or outpatient, for the treatment of drug and/or alcohol addiction dependency or abuse which may include, but not be limited to urine, breath, saliva and skin testing to determine whether the defendant has reverted to the use of drugs and/or alcohol. Further, the defendant shall participate as instructed and as deemed necessary by the probation officer and shall comply with all the rules and regulations of the treatment agency until discharged by the Program Director with the approval of the probation officer. The defendant shall further submit to drug detection techniques in addition to those performed by the treatment agency, as directed by the probation officer. The defendant will incur costs associated with such drug/alcohol detection and treatment, based on ability to pay as determined by the probation officer.
Martinez challenges this condition of supervised release.
A defendant has a constitutional right to be present at sentencing. See United States v. A-Abras, 185 F.3d 26, 29 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(a) (). Therefore, when there is a conflict between a written sentence and an oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls. See United States v. De La Pena-Juarez, 214 F.3d 594, 601 (5th Cir. 2000). If, however, there is merely an ambiguity between the two sentences, the entire record must be examined to determine the district court's true intent. See id.
The district court's failure to mention mandatory drug treatment in its oral pronouncement constitutes a conflict, not an ambiguity. "In this Circuit, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Pacheco-Alvarado
...544 Fed.Appx. 284, 285 (5th Cir.2013) ; United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 352–53 (5th Cir.2008).43 United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001).44 See United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 372 (5th Cir.2003).45 United States v. Rhine, 637 F.3d 525, 529 (5th Cir.2011) ......
-
U.S. v. Story
...there is a conflict between a written sentence and an oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls." United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001). "If, however, there is merely an ambiguity between the two sentences, the entire record must be examined to determine the......
-
U.S. v. Meléndez-Santana
...("To the extent of any conflict between [a] written order and [an] oral sentence, the latter is controlling."); United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001) ("[W]hen there is a conflict between a written sentence and an oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls."); ......
-
U.S.A v. Durham
...to conform to the oral pronouncement. See, e.g., United States v. Alburay, 415 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir.2005); United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001) (per curiam).III. In summary, I join Parts II.B.1 and II.B.2 of Judge Bye's partial majority opinion, but I respectfully d......