United States v. Rolando Hinojosa, 956 F.3d 331

Rolando Hinojosa was convicted of money laundering and major drug offenses involving multiple kilograms of heroin and cocaine and was sentenced to prison followed by supervised release (SR).
At sentencing the court orally imposed standard SR conditions and required substance-abuse testing; the written judgment added that Hinojosa may not attempt to obstruct or tamper with testing and must pay testing costs if able.
Hinojosa did not object at sentencing and later challenged (1) an alleged conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment (the tampering prohibition) and (2) the reasonableness of mandatory testing.
The probation officer’s report reflected prior drug use: cocaine about two years before arrest and past marijuana use; the offenses involved large quantities of drugs.
The district court imposed testing (not a treatment program); the Fifth Circuit reviewed the conflict claim for abuse of discretion and the reasonableness/plain-error aspects under plain-error review because Hinojosa failed to object.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed: the written tampering prohibition did not conflict with the oral order and the testing condition was a permissible, reasonably related special condition under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and § 3553(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the written anti-tampering clause conflicts with the oral sentencing pronouncement	The written judgment broadened the orally pronounced condition by adding a tampering prohibition not stated at sentencing	The tampering ban merely clarifies what testing entails and is consistent with the oral requirement to submit to testing	No conflict: written condition clarifies the testing requirement and does not broaden it (abuse-of-discretion review)
Whether requiring substance-abuse testing was permissible and reasonable	Testing was unreasonable given outdated marijuana use and minimal recent drug history	Court had reason to believe defendant abused controlled substances (recent cocaine use, drug-quantity offenses); testing is a less onerous alternative to treatment and relates to §3553(a) factors	Condition upheld under plain-error review: testing reasonably related to offense and characteristics, not more restrictive than necessary, and consistent with policy statements

United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2002) (written-judgment clarification can be an ambiguity consistent with oral intent)
United States v. De La Pena-Juarez, 214 F.3d 594 (5th Cir. 2000) (oral pronouncement controls written judgment where a true conflict exists)
United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes conflict from resolvable ambiguity between oral and written conditions)
United States v. Truscello, 168 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1999) (written judgment may clarify scope of an orally imposed condition)
United States v. Cothran, 302 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2002) (court may require substance-abuse programs/testing if it has reason to believe defendant abuses controlled substances)
United States v. Hathorn, 920 F.3d 982 (5th Cir. 2019) (three statutory requirements for special SR conditions and deference to district court discretion)
United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2015) (appellate courts may infer justification for a special condition from the record)
United States v. Kearby, 943 F.3d 969 (5th Cir. 2019) (no plain error where special conditions meet statutory requirements)