United States v. Williams

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10667
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAMON WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:18-CR-291-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Damon Williams was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable
amount of methamphetamine and sentenced to 95 months of imprisonment.
He now appeals, asserting that the district court’s oral pronouncement of three
years of supervised release conflicts with the written judgment of four years of
supervised release. The Government has moved for summary affirmance in

*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 15, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-10667 Document: 00515418401 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2020

No. 19-10667
2
lieu of filing an appellate brief or, alternatively, an extension of time to file a
brief.
“[A] defendant has a constitutional right to be present at sentencing.”
United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378, 380 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted); see F
ED. R. CRIM. P. 43(a)(3). “Where there is a
conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, the oral
pronouncement controls.” United States v. English, 400 F.3d 273, 276 (5th
Cir. 2005). Although the district court initially imposed a three year term of
supervised release at sentencing, before the sentencing hearing concluded, the
court corrected itself and imposed a four-year term of supervised release.
Because the written judgment reflects a four-year term of supervised release,
there is no conflict between the district court’s oral pronouncement and the
written judgment. See Bigelow, 462 F.3d at 381; English, 400 F.3d at 276.
Summary affirmance is not appropriate, and the Government’s motion
is DENIED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th
Cir. 1969). The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to
file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-10667 Document: 00515418401 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2020