Summary
The Fourth Circuit held that an appellate waiver did not bar John McLaurin’s challenge to the revocation of supervised release based on discretionary conditions that were included in the written judgment but not orally pronounced at sentencing. Applying United States v. Rogers and plain-error review, the court concluded that the conditions were nullities and that the district court lacked authority to revoke supervised release based on them. The court vacated the revocation judgment and remanded for resentencing, with a dissent arguing that the challenge was procedurally barred and invited by McLaurin’s agreement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether McLaurin's appellate waiver barred his challenge to revocation based on supervised-release conditions that were allegedly nullities under United States v. Rogers.
- Whether the appeal was timely and procedurally proper despite challenging conditions included in the 2013 judgment.
- Whether the district court committed plain error by revoking supervised release based on discretionary conditions that were not orally pronounced at the original sentencing.
Holdings
- An appellate waiver covering the sentence imposed and the decision to impose terms or conditions of supervised release did not clearly encompass a challenge to a later revocation based on discretionary conditions that were never properly imposed.
- A defendant may raise a Rogers challenge through a timely appeal from a later judgment that is infected by the original Rogers error, including a revocation judgment, when that later proceeding provides a procedurally appropriate mechanism.
- The district court committed plain error by revoking McLaurin's supervised release based on standard conditions that were discretionary, were not orally pronounced at sentencing, and therefore were nullities under Rogers.
Key quotations
“Any discretionary supervised release conditions that appear for the first time in the written judgment are nullities.” (2)
“The district court lacked authority to revoke supervised release based on conditions that were never imposed.” (12)
“For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the revocation judgment and remand for revocation resentencing.” (15)
Factual background
McLaurin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and received a 120-month sentence followed by five years of supervised release. The district court orally pronounced four special conditions but did not orally pronounce the fourteen standard conditions later included in the written judgment. After McLaurin violated two of those standard conditions by failing to make himself available for home visits and failing to report a change of residence, he admitted those violations in exchange for dismissal of other alleged violations, and the district court revoked his supervised release.
Procedural history
McLaurin pleaded guilty in 2012 and was sentenced in 2013 to 120 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. The written judgment included fourteen standard conditions, including conditions concerning home visits and notification of changes in residence, but the district court did not orally recite those standard conditions. In 2024, McLaurin admitted violating the two standard conditions, the remaining alleged violations were dismissed, and the district court revoked supervised release and imposed a new term of supervised release. The Fourth Circuit vacated the revocation judgment and remanded for resentencing.
Remand instructions
Vacate the revocation judgment and remand for revocation resentencing.