USA v. Amara Juwara, No. 09-10541 (11th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 09-10541 APRIL 23,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 12month 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
