United States v. Amara Juwara , 375 F. App'x 996 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-10541 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 23, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-00346-CR-J-32-TEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AMARA JUWARA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(April 23, 2010)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Amara Juwara appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his
supervised release. This appeal follows our denial of counsel’s motion to
withdraw from further representation of Juwara on appeal pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our initial review of the record revealed at least
one issue of arguable merit: “whether the oral sentence pronounced by the district
court or the written judgment controls.” The parties have now briefed that issue.
We have held that “[w]hen a sentence pronounced orally and unambiguously
conflicts with the written order of judgment, the oral pronouncement governs.”
United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2000); see also United
States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305, 1316 (11th Cir. 2000) (same). Cf. United States
v. Purcell, 715 F.2d 561, 563 (11th Cir. 1983) (“When there is an ambiguity in the
oral sentencing, as opposed to a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the
written judgment, it is proper to look to the written judgment to ascertain the
court’s intention.”). The remedy in such a situation is a limited remand with
instructions for the district court to enter an amended judgment that conforms to its
earlier oral pronouncement. See Chavez, 204 F.3d at 1316.
The parties agree that the sentencing transcript reveals that the district court
specifically and unambiguously stated that it was imposing a sentence of 12
months’ imprisonment, while the subsequent written judgment does not conform to
2
that oral pronouncement. Based on our precedent, the oral pronouncement of a 12-
month term of imprisonment controls. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and
remand with instructions for the district court to amend the written judgment to
conform to the earlier oral sentence.
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
3