United States v. Leobardo Vasquez-Ruiz
702 F. App'x 241
5th Cir.2017Background
- Leobardo Vasquez-Ruiz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 37 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
- The district court orally told Vasquez-Ruiz at sentencing that he was “going to get deported” and warned he could not return illegally.
- The written judgment, however, included a special supervised-release condition requiring that he “immediately report” or “surrender” to immigration officials upon release.
- The presentence report appendix listed the “report or surrender” condition, but the district judge did not ask targeted questions about supervised-release conditions at sentencing; Vasquez-Ruiz had no meaningful opportunity to object.
- Vasquez-Ruiz appealed, arguing the written judgment’s “report or surrender” requirement conflicts with the oral pronouncement because that specific surrender requirement was not orally pronounced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the written judgment’s "report or surrender" special condition conflicts with the oral pronouncement | Vasquez-Ruiz: the surrender requirement was not orally pronounced, so the written judgment broadens sentence and conflicts with oral pronouncement | Government/District Court: judge orally stated deportation and prohibition on illegal return; surrender requirement is consistent with that intent | No conflict; oral statement that defendant would be deported makes the surrender/report requirement consistent with the oral pronouncement; judgment affirmed |
| Whether the condition must have been orally pronounced because it is a permissive special condition (not mandatory/standard) | Vasquez-Ruiz: "report or surrender" is a permissive special condition under §3583(d) and thus must be orally pronounced to avoid conflict | Government: the condition aligns with the court’s oral intent and does not broaden supervised-release restrictions | Court: although permissive, the requirement did not broaden the orally pronounced restrictions and is consistent with the court’s intent; no reversal |
| Standard of review given lack of opportunity to object at sentencing | Vasquez-Ruiz: lack of targeted questioning deprived him of meaningful opportunity to object | Government: review should be for abuse of discretion | Court: applied abuse-of-discretion review due to the procedural circumstances |
| Whether inclusion of the condition in local General Order affects conflict analysis | Vasquez-Ruiz: condition is not a standard Guideline condition and thus distinct | Government: condition is part of the same special-condition framework in the Southern District of Texas General Order | Court: found the written requirement is part of that special-condition framework and consistent with oral pronouncement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2002) (oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written judgment)
- United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2003) (defendant has constitutional right to be present at sentencing)
- United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing conflict from ambiguity; written judgment that broadens oral pronouncement creates conflict)
- United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934 (5th Cir. 2003) (conditions that are mandatory, standard, or guideline-recommended may be included in judgment even if not orally pronounced)