United States v. Daniel Lomas, III, 643 F. App'x 319

Daniel Lomas pleaded guilty in 2008 to transporting an alien for financial gain; sentenced to 24 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release with special conditions including drug treatment, mental‑health treatment, and an educational program.
After multiple revocations (2012, 2013, 2014) the district court varied which special conditions were orally reimposed; the 2014 written judgment included a mental‑health condition and the original educational‑program condition that were not clearly orally reinstated at the 2014 revocation sentencing.
Lomas appealed, arguing the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement (educational condition) and that the mental‑health condition impermissibly delegated judicial authority to the probation officer.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the reimposition of special conditions for abuse of discretion and held that when written and oral pronouncements conflict, the oral pronouncement controls.
The court vacated the educational program special condition (not orally reimposed) and vacated the mental‑health condition because its wording was ambiguous and risked an impermissible delegation; remanded for resentencing with instruction on permissible drafting.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the educational‑program special condition in the written judgment is valid where it was not orally reimposed at the 2014 revocation sentencing	Lomas: written judgment added the educational condition not pronounced at revocation; oral pronouncement controls, so condition must be struck	Government: review should be plain error or the district court did not abuse its discretion in including the condition	Court: vacated the educational condition — oral pronouncement controls and the condition was not orally reimposed, so written judgment must be amended
Whether the mental‑health condition impermissibly delegates judicial power to the probation officer	Lomas: wording (“as deemed necessary and approved by the probation officer”) gives probation officer authority to decide whether treatment is required — unconstitutional delegation	Government: argues no abuse of discretion; court had reason to believe treatment was needed (emphasizing record)	Court: vacated the mental‑health condition and remanded. The court found the condition ambiguous and instructed that courts may mandate participation while leaving implementation details to probation officers, but may not leave the decision whether participation is required to the officer

United States v. Torres‑Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934 (5th Cir. 2003) (oral pronouncement controls when written judgment conflicts)
United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2003) (same principle on conflict between oral and written sentence)
United States v. Tang, 718 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 2013) (district court abused discretion by including additional restriction in written judgment not orally pronounced)
United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2006) (defendant has opportunity at sentencing to object to special conditions)
United States v. Perez‑Macias, 335 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 2003) (constitutional questions reviewed de novo)
United States v. Heath, 419 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2005) (impermissible delegation where probation officer decides whether defendant will participate in treatment)
United States v. Pruden, 398 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2005) (probation officer may not decide nature or extent of punishment imposed)
United States v. Peterson, 248 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2001) (discussing ambiguity and delegation concerns in treatment conditions)