Summary
The Fifth Circuit addressed discrepancies between the supervised-release conditions orally pronounced at sentencing and those included in the written judgment for a defendant convicted of unlawful reentry. It affirmed most challenged conditions, holding that conditions disclosed in the presentence report did not need to be read aloud where the defendant had notice and failed to object. The court vacated and remanded Special Condition 2 because the written judgment added a reporting requirement that imposed an additional burden not included in the oral pronouncement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court plainly erred by imposing supervised-release conditions that were disclosed in the presentence report but not read aloud at sentencing.
- Whether the written judgment's addition of a 72-hour reporting requirement to Special Condition 2 conflicted with the oral pronouncement and therefore required vacatur.
- Whether the difference between the oral and written versions of Standard Condition 10 constituted a conflict requiring vacatur or merely an ambiguity that could be upheld.
Holdings
- When supervised-release conditions are disclosed in the presentence report, the district court need not read each condition aloud at sentencing. Given the defendant's notice and failure to object, review is for plain error, and the court did not plainly err here.
- The written judgment's addition of a requirement that Lezama-Ramirez report to the nearest probation office within 72 hours after reentry imposed an additional burden beyond the oral pronouncement. The condition therefore had to be vacated and remanded for conformity with the oral pronouncement.
- The difference between the oral prohibition on possessing weapons and the written prohibition on owning, possessing, or having access to weapons was an ambiguity rather than a conflict. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion.
Key quotations
“Instead, we ‘draw reasonable inferences from court documents, the defendant’s statements, and counsel’s statements’ to determine whether the defendant has been given an opportunity to read the PSR with his counsel[,]” (at 3)
“we ask whether the written judgment broadens the restrictions or requirements of supervised release, or imposes a more burdensome requirement than that of the oral pronouncement.” (at 4)
Factual background
Lezama-Ramirez pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry after removal. The presentence report disclosed thirteen standard and two special supervised-release conditions, and counsel stated that he had no objections to the report. At sentencing, the district court adopted the report and imposed supervised-release conditions without reading all of them aloud; the written judgment reproduced the conditions from the report but added a 72-hour reporting requirement to Special Condition 2 and used broader language for Standard Condition 10.
Procedural history
Lezama-Ramirez pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The Eastern District of Louisiana sentenced him to 24 months in prison and one year of supervised release, adopting the presentence report and imposing supervised-release conditions. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit treated the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, granted panel rehearing, denied rehearing en banc, withdrew its prior opinion, and substituted this opinion.
Remand instructions
Vacate Special Condition 2 and remand for the district court to conform that condition to the condition orally pronounced at sentencing. Affirm the judgment in all other respects.