Anited States Court of Appeals
`for the FFifth Civcuit
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`
`No. 24-20408 Fifth Circuit
`
`Summary Calendar FILED
`July 8, 2025
`Lyle W. Cayce
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
`
`Plaintiff— Appellee,
`yersus
`DESHAUN HUNTER,
`
`Defendant— Appellant.
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of Texas
`USDC No. 4:18-CR-649-1
`
`Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and RAMIREZ, Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM:"
`
`Deshaun Hunter challenges his 18-months’ sentence, imposed
`following the revocation of his supervised release. Hunter maintains that the
`written judgment must be corrected because it conflicts with the district
`
`court’s oral pronouncement of his sentence at the revocation hearing.
`
`" This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 24-20408
`
`A district court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence controls over
`the written judgment if there is any conflict. E.g., United States v. Moreci, 283
`F.3d 293, 299-300 (5th Cir. 2002). “A conflict occurs if the written
`judgment broadens the restrictions or requirements of supervised release
`from an oral pronouncement . . . or imposes more burdensome conditions.”
`United States v. Prado, 53 F.4th 316, 318 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).
`“In the event of a conflict, the written judgment must be amended to
`
`conform with the oral pronouncement, which controls.” /4.
`
`As the Government concedes, Hunter is correct that the oral sentence
`and written revocation judgment conflict. The district court stated in its oral
`pronouncement that it was imposing a prison term of 16 months, while the
`written judgment sets forth a more burdensome prison term of 18 months.
`Accordingly, the written judgment must be conformed to the oral
`
`pronouncement. See id.
`
`Additionally, although not raised by the parties, we have identified
`two clerical errors in the judgment. Under Federal Rule of Criminal
`Procedure 36, our court may review a judgment sua sponte for clerical errors
`and remand for the limited purpose of correcting them. Unisted States v. Illses,
`805 F.3d 607, 610 (5th Cir. 2015). A clerical error occurs “when the court
`intended one thing but by merely clerical mistake or oversight did another”.
`United States v. Buendia-Rangel, 553 F.3d 378, 379 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation
`omitted).
`
`First, Violation Number Four is listed among the violations
`abandoned by the Government, which is incorrect, as it is one of the two
`violations to which Hunter pleaded true. (The judgment correctly notes that
`Hunter admitted guilt to Violation Number Four above the clerical error.)
`Additionally, the judgment mischaracterizes Violation Number Six as “New
`
`Law Violation: (Mandatory Condition) Evading arrest-detention with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 24-20408
`
`previous conviction”; when, instead, the new law offense underlying
`Violation Number Six was Hunter’s commission of, and conviction for, the
`Texas state crime of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The written
`judgment should be amended to reflect the correct new law violation and
`abandoned violations. See United States v. Fatani, 125 F.4th 755, 762 & n.3
`(5th Cir. 2025).
`
`AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED to correct the clerical errors
`
`and conform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`