United States v. Anselmo Venegas
670 F. App'x 264
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Venegas pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 100 months imprisonment and 20 years supervised release; he did not object at sentencing.
- At sentencing the court said Venegas did not have a "narcotics issue" but told him to "avoid all illegal narcotics."
- The written judgment included the standard drug-testing condition: one test within 15 days of release and at least two periodic tests thereafter.
- The written judgment also added a special condition requiring "periodic" urine/breath/saliva/skin testing and that the defendant "incur costs" for testing based on ability to pay as determined by probation.
- Venegas appealed only the drug-testing special condition, arguing it broadened his supervised-release obligations by imposing unlimited-duration testing and fee payment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the written special condition broadened supervised-release restrictions beyond the oral pronouncement | Venegas: special condition requires ongoing/unlimited periodic testing beyond the standard condition | Government/District Court: special condition aligns with standard condition and sentencing intent | The special condition is not broader; court intended periodic testing limited to the standard condition's scope |
| Whether imposing testing costs in the written special condition conflicted with the oral pronouncement | Venegas: fee requirement broadens obligations because oral pronouncement did not mention costs | Government/District Court: cost allocation is admissible in written judgment and creates at most an ambiguity resolved by intent | Fee requirement does not conflict and is consistent with sentencing intent; no modification warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review when defendant lacked opportunity to object at sentencing)
- United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001) (defendant has right to be present at sentencing)
- United States v. English, 400 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2005) (oral pronouncement controls if written judgment conflicts)
- United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (conflict exists when written judgment broadens supervised-release restrictions)
- United States v. Moreci, 283 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2002) (review entire record to determine sentencing court intent when ambiguity exists)
- Scott v. United States, 434 F.2d 11 (5th Cir. 1970) (judge's intent is ascertained from bench statements and signed order)
- United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard conditions in the written judgment do not conflict with oral pronouncement)
- United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2003) (imposition of costs in written judgment, even if first mentioned there, does not create a conflict)
- United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2002) (cost allocation can create ambiguity resolved by reviewing sentencing intent)