United States v. Bland

── United States v. Bland ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-50838 Document: 48-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-50838 May 27, 2026 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Timothy Bland, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:21-CR-531-1 ______________________________ Before Richman, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Timothy Bland pleaded guilty to methamphetamine trafficking in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. The district court sentenced him to 235 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release. At sentencing, the court orally limited a special condition requiring residence in a reentry center: the condition would apply only if Bland lacks sufficient _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.  Case: 25-50838 Document: 48-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2026 No. 25-50838 housing upon release. But the written judgment omitted that limitation and required reentry-center placement for up to 120 days without qualification. That matters. When an oral sentence conflicts with the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. The Government concedes the conflict and moves, without opposition, to remand. We GRANT the motion, VACATE the challenged special condition as written, and REMAND with instructions to conform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement. 1 I Bland’s presentence report (PSR) recommended, as one of many special conditions of supervised release, that he “shall reside in a residential reentry center for a term of up to 120 days.” At sentencing, defense counsel requested that the district court modify this reentry-center condition to apply only “if deemed necessary by probation,” because Bland might have “a suitable residence available” upon release. The district court agreed, and pronounced a modified special condition: The defendant shall reside in a residential re-entry center for a term of up to 120 days if deemed appropriate and needed or warranted at the time he is released from confinement. The defendant shall follow the rules and regulations of the center if he is to serve or if he is to stay or reside in a center. This condition shall only apply if the defendant does not have an appropriate residence upon release from confinement. The written judgment, however, contained the PSR’s original, unmodified language, requiring that “[t]he defendant shall reside in a residential reentry center for a term of up to 120 days.” Because this _____________________ 1 We DENY as moot the Government’s alternative request to extend the briefing deadline. 2  Case: 25-50838 Document: 48-1 Page: 3 Date Fi