discussed Cited "see" Franklin E. Hagins v. United States See United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir.) (holding that, where a written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncements of the sentencing judge, the oral pronouncement at sentencing controls), ce rt. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 121 S.Ct. 666 , 148 L.Ed.2d 568 (2000). b.

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dionas v. State Compare United States v. Williams, 212 F.3d 1305 , 1311 n. 10 (D.C.Cir.) (courts should “hesitate to connect the length of deliberations with the strength of the government’s case”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 121 S.Ct. 666 , 148 L.Ed.2d 568 (2000), with United States v. Velarde-Gomez, 269 F.3d 1023, 1036 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (“Longer jury deliberations ‘weigh against a finding of harmless error’ because lengthy deliberations suggest a difficult case.”); United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113, 126 (1st Cir.2000) (same).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dionas v. State Compare United States v. Williams, 212 F.3d 1305 , 1311 n. 10 (D.C.Cir.) (courts should “hesitate to connect the length of deliberations with the strength of the government’s case”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 121 S.Ct. 666 , 148 L.Ed.2d 568 (2000), with United States v. Velarde-Gomez, 269 F.3d 1023, 1036 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (“Longer jury deliberations “weigh against a finding of harmless error’ because lengthy deliberations suggest a *513 difficult case.”); United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113, 126 (1st Cir.2000) (same).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. VanMeter (2×) Compare United States v. Kelley, 140 F.3d 596, 604 (5th Cir.) (reviewing for clear error), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 880 , 908, 119 S.Ct. 186 , 247, 142 L.Ed.2d 152, 203 (1998) with United States v. Bennett, 219 F.3d 1117, 1121 (5th Cir.) (reviewing for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 1153, 121 S.Ct. 666 , 1099, 148 L.Ed.2d 568 , 971 (2000).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Ramon Velarde-Gomez Longer jury deliberations “weigh against a finding of harmless error [because l]engthy deliberations suggest a difficult case.” United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113, 126 (1st Cir.2000); Dallago v. United States, 427 F.2d 546, 559 (D.C.Cir.1969) (“The jury deliberated for five days, and one would expect that if the evidence of guilt was overwhelming the jury would have succumbed much sooner.”) (footnote omitted); see also United States v. Williams, 212 F.3d 1305, 1313 (D.C.Cir.) (Silberman, J., dissenting) (“[W]e are willing to take into consideration the length of jury deliberat…