United States v. Christopher Anstice
930 F.3d 907
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- Christopher Anstice pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and 5 years supervised release.
- The PSR listed five conditions under a “mandatory” heading and additional standard and special (discretionary) conditions; Anstice confirmed receipt of the PSR at sentencing.
- At sentencing the district court orally imposed the 5-year term of supervised release and expressly adopted most standard and special conditions from the PSR, but did not orally announce the five conditions labeled “mandatory.”
- The written Judgment & Commitment (J&C) included those five conditions under “Statutory Mandatory Conditions.”
- On appeal Anstice argued the five conditions in the written judgment were not part of his sentence because they were not orally imposed; the court examined which of those conditions were truly statutory-mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).
Issues
| Issue | Anstice's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditions listed only in the written judgment but not announced orally are part of sentence | Oral sentence controls; conditions not pronounced are invalid | Statutorily-mandated conditions must be part of supervised release even if not orally announced | For conditions mandated by statute, written inclusion suffices; they remain valid despite not being announced orally |
| Whether all five conditions labeled "Statutory Mandatory Conditions" were actually mandated by statute | All five were presented as mandatory in PSR and J&C so should be invalid if not pronounced | Some of the listed conditions are statutory and therefore mandatory regardless of oral announcement | Three conditions were statutory under § 3583(d) and valid; two were not statutory and must be vacated |
| Whether non-statutory discretionary conditions in the written judgment but not announced should be vacated | Discretionary conditions not pronounced are inconsistent with oral sentence and must be vacated | Court may rely on written judgment, but discretionary conditions must be announced at sentencing | Discretionary conditions (72-hour reporting; firearm prohibition) vacated and remanded for reconsideration |
| Whether district courts must orally recite statutory mandatory conditions | Not necessary if included in PSR/J&C | Preferable but statutory conditions are binding regardless | Court endorses practice of orally pronouncing all conditions, but statutory ones remain binding even if not pronounced |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alburay, 415 F.3d 782 (7th Cir.) (oral sentence controls over later written judgment)
- United States v. Bonanno, 146 F.3d 502 (7th Cir.) (same principle that oral pronouncement governs)
- United States v. Johnson, 765 F.3d 702 (7th Cir.) (vacating discretionary conditions appearing only in written judgment)
- United States v. Vasquez-Puente, 922 F.3d 700 (5th Cir.) (statutory mandatory supervised-release conditions valid even if not orally pronounced)
- United States v. Drapeau, 644 F.3d 646 (8th Cir.) (same conclusion on statutory conditions)
- United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir.) (same conclusion on statutory conditions)
- United States v. Vega-Ortiz, 425 F.3d 20 (1st Cir.) (same conclusion on statutory conditions)