USA v. Ezequiel Campuzano-Martinez, No. 15-40185 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-40185 Document: 00513260558 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-40185 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 5, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. EZEQUIEL CAMPUZANO-MARTINEZ, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14-CR-1540 Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ezequiel Campuzano-Martinez challenges the judgment imposed following revocation of supervised release, arising from his conviction for unlawful reentry into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The written judgment of revocation stated Campuzano violated two special conditions of release: (1) illegal reentry after previous deportation; and Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 15-40185 Document: 00513260558 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2015 No. 15-40185 (2) illegal reentry and failure to immediately report to the nearest United States Probation Office. Campuzano asserts the court abused its discretion in finding he violated the second special condition. He maintains he did not admit to the violation at the revocation hearing, and the court made no oral pronouncement of that violation. Obviously, Campuzano had no opportunity to object to the discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and written judgment; therefore, review is for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 935 (5th Cir. 2003). If the court fails to address the defendant during the revocation hearing concerning his plea to an alleged violation, and does not refer to the violation during the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement and written judgment are in conflict, and the case must be remanded to allow the court to conform its written judgment to its oral pronouncement. E.g., United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Hernandez-Ortega, 458 F. App’x 395, 396 (5th Cir. 2012). The condition of release at issue required Campuzano to report to the nearest United States probation office immediately following a lawful entry into the United States, which did not occur in this instance. Therefore, this matter is remanded for the limited purpose of amending the written judgment to remove the determination that Campuzano was found guilty of the violation of failing to report to the nearest United States probation office immediately upon reentering the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. 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.
