United States v. Tanner, 984 F.3d 454

Adaysha Tanner (aka Adaysha/ Jonathan Chark) admitted a 2013–2015 student‑aid fraud scheme that procured $117,395 in federal loans and grants and pleaded guilty in 2019 to financial aid fraud.
The district court imposed 10 months’ imprisonment and ordered restitution; sentencing discussion referenced multiple figures for restitution: $117,395 (gross), $106,744 (net), and $63,221 ("current accounting balance").
The written judgment ordered restitution of $106,744 and credited prior payments but did not list $63,221 as the judgment amount.
Tanner appealed solely as to the restitution amount, arguing the oral pronouncement (she says $63,221) conflicted with the written judgment ($106,744), and that the oral statement should control.
Because the alleged error first appears in the written judgment, the Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and examined the entire record (including the presentence investigation report) to determine the sentencing court’s intent.
The Court concluded the oral statement was ambiguous and the written judgment reflected the district court’s intent to order $106,744 in restitution, so it affirmed the written judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an oral sentencing statement controls when it appears to conflict with a written judgment	U.S.: Written judgment reflected court’s intent and properly imposed $106,744	Tanner: Oral pronouncement (allegedly $63,221) conflicts with written judgment, so oral should control	No conflict found; written judgment reflects intent and controls where oral was ambiguous
Whether an ambiguity in oral pronouncement can be resolved by reference to the record/PSI	U.S.: Ambiguity can be clarified by examining the record and PSI to determine intent	Tanner: Oral statement was controlling and should override written judgment	Ambiguity resolved by the record; PSI and sentencing colloquy show $106,744 was intended
Standard of review when sentencing error first appears in written judgment	U.S.: Abuse of discretion review applies because defendant lacked opportunity to object at sentencing	Tanner: (implicit) plain‑error review insufficient because the written judgment conflicts with oral pronouncement	Abuse of discretion review applies; court examined entire record to determine intent

Diggles v. United States, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020) (district court must orally pronounce sentence; oral controls when it actually conflicts with written judgment)
Tang v. United States, 718 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2013) (when written judgment clarifies an ambiguous oral pronouncement, court looks to sentencing court’s intent)
English v. United States, 400 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2005) (sentencing court’s intent determined from the entire record)
Bigelow v. United States, 462 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2006) (review for abuse of discretion where defendant lacked opportunity to object in district court)
Romero‑Medrano v. United States, 899 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2018) (ambiguous oral pronouncement resolved by considering record and intent)
Schurmann v. United States, 658 F.2d 389 (5th Cir. Unit A Oct. 1981) (written judgment may clarify an ambiguous oral sentence)