USA v. Ryan Taylor, No. 16-40421 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-40421 Document: 00513840889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-40421 Summary Calendar FILED January 19, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RYAN SCOTT DANIEL TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:15-CR-219-1 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ryan Scott Daniel Taylor appeals an aspect of the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to credit card fraud and aggravated identity theft. He argues that the written judgment should be amended to accurately reflect the district court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing that it would recommend that Taylor participate in the 500-hour Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP) offered by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The written judgment Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-40421 Document: 00513840889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2017 No. 16-40421 recommends only a non-specific drug treatment program. Taylor contends that the BOP has several drug treatment programs but that only the RDAP can result in a sentence reduction. The Government agrees that the oral and written judgments are in conflict and that a remand for correction of the written judgment is appropriate. Accordingly, the written judgement is AMENDED to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement recommending that Taylor participate in the RDAP specifically. See United States v. Wheeler, 322 F.3d 823, 828 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Castaneda, 494 F. App’x 484, 485 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished); 28 U.S.C. § 2106. In all other respects to the judgment is AFFIRMED as amended. See Wheeler, 322 F.3d at 828; 28 U.S.C. § 2106. 2

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.