United States v. Marisol Flores, 664 F. App'x 395

Marisol Flores pleaded nolo contendere to two misdemeanor offenses and received concurrent one-year probation terms; the case transferred from Kansas to Texas.
After alleged probation violations, the district court revoked probation and resentenced Flores to consecutive jail terms with one year of supervised release.
At sentencing the court orally stated Flores would reside in a residential reentry center for the first six months only if she did not have an approved place to live; if she obtained approved housing, the RRC requirement would not apply.
The written judgment, however, stated Flores "shall reside in a Residential Reentry Center for a period of six (6) months" with no conditional language.
Flores appealed, arguing the written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement by making the RRC placement mandatory rather than conditional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the written special condition conflicts with the oral pronouncement	Flores: written judgment broadened the restriction by removing the conditional "if" and thus conflicts	Government: oral "if" could be read as explanatory rather than conditional, so no conflict; examine record for intent	Court: The discrepancy is a conflict because the written judgment imposes a more burdensome, mandatory requirement; oral pronouncement controls
Standard of review for conflict between oral sentence and written judgment	Flores: not applicable (issue raised on appeal) but special-condition conflicts reviewed for abuse of discretion	Government: urged examining record (ambiguity analysis)	Court: When written judgment broadens restrictions, review is abuse of discretion and oral pronouncement controls
Whether ambiguity exists requiring review of entire record	Flores: not ambiguous—clear conditional right in oral pronouncement	Government: urged ambiguity and review of court’s intent	Court: Not an ambiguity; written judgment removed the right to choose approved housing, making it a conflict
Remedy when written judgment conflicts with oral pronouncement	Flores: vacate conflicting condition and remand to conform written judgment to oral sentence	Government: sought interpretation to avoid vacatur	Court: Vacated the special condition in the written judgment and remanded with instructions to conform it to the oral pronouncement

United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2006) (discrepancy between written judgment and oral sentence deprives defendant of opportunity to object; oral controls)
United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2003) (oral pronouncement controls where written judgment conflicts)
United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing conflict from ambiguity; key is whether written judgment broadens restrictions)
United States v. Mudd, 685 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2012) (vacating written condition that was more burdensome than oral pronouncement)
United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2002) (if ambiguity exists, review entire record to determine court intent)
United States v. Tang, 718 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2013) (example of finding conflict where written judgment broadened prohibition)
United States v. Wheeler, 322 F.3d 823 (5th Cir. 2003) (finding conflict when written judgment increased community service obligation)
United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001) (oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written judgment)