USA v. Daryl Carlisle Stokley

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-10372
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DARYL CARLISLE STOKLEY,
Defendant- Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:15-cr-00010-MMH-MCR-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10372 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10372
Before R OSENBAUM , LUCK , and LAGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Daryl Stokley appeals after the district court revoked his su-
pervised release for a child-pornography offense and ordered him
to serve twelve months in prison and an additional eight years on
supervised release. In ordering the new term of supervised release,
the district court orally imposed a condition prohibiting Stokley
from “viewing or possessing adult pornography, so long as he is
under the treatment of a mental health care provider for sex of-
fender treatment and so long as it is [contra]indicated for his treat-
ment.” The written judgment, however, simply barred Stokley
from “viewing or possessing adult pornography” without qualifica-
tion.
Stokley argues, and the government agrees, that the written
condition is broader than, and unambiguously conflicts with, the
oral condition imposed during the revocation hearing. “When 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). In the
case of such a conflict, we will issue a limited remand instructing
the court “to enter an amended judgment that conforms to its oral
pronouncement.”
United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305, 1316
(11th Cir. 2000).
USCA11 Case: 22-10372 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

22-10372 Opinion of the Court 3
We agree with the parties that the written judgment “unam-
biguously conflict[ed] with” the district court’s oral pronounce-
ment of the sentence as to the condition of supervised release re-
lated to viewing and possessing adult pornography. Because the
oral pronouncement controls, we vacate and remand for the lim-
ited purpose of entering an amended judgment that matches the
oral pronouncement.
VACATED and REMANDED with instructions to amend
the written judgment.
USCA11 Case: 22-10372 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --