United States v. Charles Little Bear, 413 F. App'x 942

Little Bear was convicted of abusive sexual conduct under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a)(3) and 1153 and sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment and 30 years of supervised release.
The district court imposed a 30-year term of supervised release and a $750 fine.
Appellant challenges (1) the length of supervised release as a Fifth/Sixth Amendment issue, (2) the written conditions vs oral pronouncement as Double Jeopardy, and (3) the $750 fine.
The court reviews the supervised-release issue for plain error since not raised at sentencing, and finds the sentence within the statutory framework of § 3583(k) guided by 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors.
The court rejects the Double Jeopardy challenge, finding no conflict between oral pronouncement and written judgment because standard and special conditions were consistently applied.
The court affirms the judgment, upholding the $750 fine after considering the guidelines and the PSI, finding no clear error under Houchin

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the 30-year supervised-release term proper under Fifth/Sixth Amendment limits?	Little Bear argues the term rests on his silence and thus violates the Fifth/Sixth Amendments.	Little Bear contends the court amplified the term due to continued denial of responsibility.	No plain error; sentence within statutory factors and consistent with Spotted Elk.
Do written supervising-release conditions conflict with oral pronouncement, violating Double Jeopardy?	Little Bear asserts a conflict between oral sentence and written judgment.	No conflict; standard conditions appeared in judgment and were not objected to at sentencing.	No conflict; oral pronouncement controls only if conflicting with judgment; here they align.
Was the $750 fine clearly erroneous under the guidelines and Houchin factors?	Little Bear claims the district court failed to properly apply Houchin factors.	Court relied on PSI and found sufficient basis to impose $750.	Not clearly erroneous; district court adequately considered factors and PSI.

Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999) (silence at sentencing has force until sentence fixed; relates to acceptance of responsibility)
United States v. Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2008) (sentence within range based on failure to accept responsibility permissible)
United States v. Benitez, 531 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2008) (denial of effect on chilling effect of trial rights rejected)
United States v. Foster, 514 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2008) (oral sentence vs written judgment not in conflict here)
United States v. Tramp, 30 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 1994) (oral pronouncement determines judgment absent conflict)
United States v. Houchin, 413 F.3d 750 (8th Cir. 2005) (fine must be reviewed for reasonableness; factors need not be exhaustively listed)
United States v. Berndt, 86 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 1996) (guideline-based fine review standard)
United States v. Hines, 88 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 1996) (requirement to consider ability to pay in guidelines)
United States v. Boone, 437 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2006) (plain-error review for sentencing)