United States of America v. Walter Thornton, Jr

Background Walter Thornton, Jr. had originally been sentenced to imprisonment and supervised release after convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. After more than two years on supervised release, the government sought revocation based on several alleged violations tied to a traffic stop and additional reporting-related allegations. At the revocation hearing, Thornton admitted fleeing and entering Mississippi without approval, denied possessing a controlled substance, denied tampering with evidence, and denied changing residences without notice. The government declined to pursue the employment allegation, and the district court revoked supervised release, imposed 18 months of imprisonment, and ordered no further supervised release. The court’s reasoning The court held that Thornton’s appellate challenge to the revocation sentence was moot because Bureau of Prisons records showed he had already been released from custody and no further supervised release remained. The panel separately addressed the written judgment because a court may correct a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment. Applying the rule that the oral sentence controls when it conflicts with the written judgment, the panel concluded the written judgment was inaccurate because it stated Thornton admitted a residence-change violation and was found guilty of a controlled-substance violation, even though he denied the residence allegation, the government offered no proof on that point, and the district court ruled against the government on the controlled-substance allegation. The panel determined remand was unnecessary because it could correct the clerical error itself and modified the judgment to reflect only the violations actually admitted or adjudicated at the hearing. It is well settled . . . that a district court’s oral sentence controls when it conflicts with the written judgment. United States v. Thomas, 757 F.3d 806, 809 (8th Cir. 2014) The dissent With neither prison time nor supervised release left to serve, Thornton’s challenge to the revocation judgment is just as moot as his challenge to the sentence, so I would dismiss across the board. Judge Stras What it means going forward The decision leaves Thornton’s completed revocation sentence undisturbed but corrects the written judgment so it accurately reflects the violations he admitted and the violation the district court actually found. The case reinforces that appellate courts may correct a written revocation judgment when it conflicts with the oral pronouncement, even if the sentence challenge itself is moot.