United States v. Bajune Moseby
689 F. App'x 266
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Bajune Moseby was convicted by jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and resentenced after remand.
- On remand the probation office revised the PSR and issued an addendum recommending certain mandatory and special conditions of supervised release.
- Defense was notified of the revised PSR and its recommended special conditions before sentencing; counsel told the court Moseby had no corrections or objections to the PSR.
- At sentencing the district court orally ordered Moseby to comply with the special conditions called out in the revised PSR and those conditions were included in the written amended judgment on remand.
- Moseby appealed the inclusion of special conditions in the written judgment that he contended were not orally pronounced; the Fifth Circuit reviewed under the plain-error standard because Moseby had an opportunity to object in district court but did not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether written judgment may include special conditions not orally pronounced | Moseby: written judgment contains special conditions not announced at sentencing, violating right to be present and oral pronouncement rule | Government: special conditions were brought to court’s and defense’s attention and court orally ordered compliance at sentencing | No reversible error — conditions were addressed and defendant had opportunity to object; claim reviewable only for plain error and fails |
| Standard of review when defendant fails to object in district court | Moseby: merits review of inclusion of conditions | Government: plain-error review because defendant could have raised the issue below but did not | Court applied plain-error review and found Moseby cannot show affected substantial rights |
| Whether the mandate rule bars the claim | Moseby: (argues or implies challenge) | Government: court questions applicability | Court pretermits (does not decide) the mandate-rule question |
| Motions to file supplemental pro se brief/for extension | Moseby: sought leave to file supplemental pro se brief and extension | Government: opposed; procedural basis for denial | Motions denied by the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error review where defendant forfeited objection at trial)
- United States v. Rouland, 726 F.3d 728 (5th Cir.) (defendant who could have objected in district court faces plain-error review)
- United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849 (5th Cir.) (defendant has constitutional right to be present at sentencing)
- United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941 (5th Cir.) (oral pronouncement controls where conflict with written judgment)
- United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934 (5th Cir.) (no conflict when written judgment includes mandatory or standard conditions not orally pronounced)
- United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378 (5th Cir.) (standard for reviewing inclusion of special conditions when challenged)
- United States v. Teel, 691 F.3d 578 (5th Cir.) (mandate-rule discussion)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519 (5th Cir.) (mandate-rule discussion)
- United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447 (5th Cir.) (denial of pro se supplemental briefing)
- United States v. Romans, 823 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.) (underlying conviction and remand background)