Written release condition conflicted with oral sentencing ruling

Listen to this article

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing after concluding that the district court committed a plain error under United States v. Rogers by imposing a supervised release condition in the written judgment that materially differed from the condition announced at sentencing.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin and to being a felon in possession of a firearm. This was the third time the case returned to the appellate court. In prior appeals, the 4th Circuit twice vacated the sentence and remanded after finding Rogers violations, which require that all non-mandatory supervised release conditions be orally pronounced at sentencing.

On the most recent remand, the district court again imposed a 164-month prison term followed by three years of supervised release. The defendant appealed, arguing that the written judgment once more included special supervised release conditions that were inconsistent with the court’s oral pronouncement.

The Government argued that the defendant waived any Rogers challenge because defense counsel did not object after receiving a draft list of proposed special conditions from the courtroom deputy before entry of judgment. The 4th Circuit rejected that argument, explaining that waiver requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right. Because no sentencing transcript was available at the time counsel reviewed the draft, counsel could not determine whether the written conditions differed from what the court had announced. The record therefore did not support waiver.

The Government alternatively asserted forfeiture, subjecting the claim to plain-error review. The court declined to resolve that issue, holding that the defendant satisfied the plain-error standard in any event. The court found that the district court orally stated the defendant should participate in mental health treatment only if the defendant believed it would be helpful, while the written judgment required participation at the direction of probation. That discrepancy was material and more restrictive, affecting the defendant’s substantial rights and the fairness of the proceedings.

Under settled precedent, the proper remedy was to vacate the entire sentence and remand for full resentencing.

The 5 page opinion is United States v. Taylor, Lawyers Weekly No. 001-011-26.