Does the word "mandated" mean "required by law"?

First, the court used the word "mandated" at other points in the January 2013 hearing in contexts in which it clearly meant to use the word as a synonym for "required by law." Where section 667, subdivision (a)(1) prior serious felony enhancement allegations are found true, "[t]he trial court has no discretion and the sentence is mandatory" (People v. Purata (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 489, 498), and here, at sentencing, the court stated, "Pursuant to ... section 667[, subdivision ](a)(1), [appellant] is mandated to serve an additional and consecutive term of five years for each prior serious felony conviction." (Italics added.) Similarly, imposition of prior prison term enhancements ( 667.5, subd. (b)) is mandatory unless such enhancements are stricken (People v. Langston (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1237, 1241-1246), and at the January 2013 sentencing the court stated: "Pursuant to ... Section 667.5[, subdivision ](b), [appellant] is mandated to serve an additional and consecutive term of one year for each prison prior. I will strike two of these enhancements ...." (Italics added.) The foregoing demonstrates that the court used the word "mandated" to mean "required by law."