United States v. Carlos Vasquez-Puente, 922 F.3d 700

Vasquez-Puente pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation (8 U.S.C. § 1326) and faced a 51–63 month guidelines range; court sentenced him to 51 months and 3 years supervised release.
At sentencing the court emphasized prior deportation, admonished he could not lawfully be in the U.S., and said supervised release was needed because he previously remained outside the U.S. only about one month.
The written judgment included three special conditions not listed in the PSR or orally pronounced: (1) surrender to ICE and follow its instructions until deportation proceedings conclude; (2) if deported, remain outside the U.S. unless legally authorized to reenter; (3) if he reenters, report to probation within 72 hours (third condition not challenged).
Vasquez-Puente appealed, arguing the first two special conditions in the written judgment conflict with the oral sentence and must be excised.
The government conceded the surrender condition is not standard/mandatory; the district court had not orally enumerated these special conditions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inclusion of a surrender-to-ICE special condition in the written judgment conflicts with the oral sentence	The surrender condition was not orally pronounced and is a permissive special condition; its inclusion broadens the written judgment and conflicts with the oral sentence, so it must be removed	The written surrender condition is consistent with the court’s intent (deportation after release) and thus is an ambiguity resolvable by the record	Court held no abuse of discretion: ambiguity (not conflict); record shows intent to have defendant deported, so surrender condition is permissible
Whether a no-reentry special condition (remain outside U.S. unless authorized) conflicts with the oral sentence	The condition was not orally pronounced and thus should be excised as a special condition added only in the written judgment	The no-reentry term merely restates the mandatory prohibition against committing federal crimes (i.e., illegal reentry) and is duplicative of a mandatory condition	Court held no abuse of discretion: no conflict because the condition duplicates a mandatory condition and is therefore permissible

United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934 (5th Cir. 2003) (oral pronouncement controls written sentence; ambiguities resolved by record of court intent)
United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2002) (where ambiguity exists, examine entire record to determine sentencing court’s intent)
United States v. Mudd, 685 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2012) (written judgment conflicts when it broadens oral supervised-release restrictions)
United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes conflicts from ambiguities; ask whether oral and written pronouncements are reconcilable)