Summary
The Fifth Circuit holds that any discretionary supervised-release condition in a written judgment that conflicts with the sentencing court’s oral pronouncement must be excised on remand. The court concludes that the full-time, thirty-hours-per-week employment requirement in the standing order conflicted with Currier’s prior conditions, while duplicative conditions and a notice-of-employment-change provision could be preserved. The judgment was vacated in part and remanded for amendment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What is the proper remedy when a written judgment conflicts with the district court's oral pronouncement at sentencing regarding discretionary conditions of supervised release?
- Whether unpronounced discretionary conditions that are duplicative of previously imposed conditions must be excised from the written judgment on remand.
- Whether the specific conditions in Standard Condition 7 of the Standing Order conflict with the oral pronouncement and must be excised.
Holdings
- Any discretionary condition in a written judgment that conflicts with the sentence as orally pronounced must be excised on remand.
- Duplicative discretionary conditions that do not conflict with the oral pronouncement may be preserved in the written judgment.
- The full-time work requirement (at least 30 hours per week) in Standard Condition 7 conflicts with the oral pronouncement and must be excised.
- The second sentence of Standard Condition 7 conflicts with the pronouncement and must be excised; the third sentence does not conflict and may be preserved.
Key quotations
“Today, we embrace and apply a bright-line rule: Any discretionary condition in a written judgment that conflicts with the sentence as orally pronounced must be excised on remand.” (Page 2)
“Our caselaw requires that written judgments be conformed to the district court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing.” (Page 11)
Factual background
In 2009, Currier was convicted of receipt of child pornography and sentenced to 210 months imprisonment and life supervised release. After his supervised release was revoked in 2024 for violations, the district court sentenced him to 36 months imprisonment and imposed a new life term of supervised release. The written judgment incorporated the Western District of Texas's Standing Order, which included discretionary conditions not orally pronounced at sentencing, including a requirement to work full-time (at least 30 hours per week).
Procedural history
Defendant was convicted in 2009 and sentenced to imprisonment and life supervised release. After revocation in 2024, the district court imposed a new life term of supervised release. Defendant appealed, challenging unpronounced discretionary conditions in the written judgment.
Remand instructions
Remand for the district court to amend its written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement by excising the conflicting conditions from Standard Condition 7 (the full-time work requirement and the requirement to seek full-time employment).