United States v. Darick Hudson, 908 F.3d 1083

Darick Hudson pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and received supervised release with discretionary conditions.
The PSR proposed a condition prohibiting "excessive use of alcohol," defined as BAC > 0.08; defense counsel raised no objection at sentencing.
The written judgment omitted the PSR's definitional checkbox, leaving "excessive" undefined.
At sentencing the court orally limited Hudson’s travel to the district where he would be supervised and agreed to permit travel to the district where his wife resides, but the written judgment used the term "jurisdiction" and failed to include his wife’s district.
Hudson appealed, challenging vagueness of the alcohol condition and the travel restriction; the court found clerical errors and ordered amendments rather than full resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a supervised-release condition prohibiting "excessive use of alcohol" is unconstitutionally vague when undefined	Hudson: "Excessive" is vague unless defined (so condition invalid)	Government: Written judgment tracked standard form; defendant waived objections	Court: Vagueness precedent controls; treat omission as clerical error and amend judgment to define "excessive" as BAC > 0.08
Whether travel restriction using term "jurisdiction" is vague	Hudson: "Jurisdiction" is unclear and omits express permission to travel to wife’s district	Government: Oral sentence clarified meaning; defendant waived	Court: "Jurisdiction" is poorly worded; substitute "judicial district" and amend to include wife's judicial district
Whether Hudson waived his objections by failing to challenge the written judgment at sentencing	Hudson: N/A	Government: Hudson waived objections by not explicitly preserving them	Court: No waiver — waiver requires intentional relinquishment; clerical errors relieved Hudson of responsibility
Appropriate remedy for inconsistency between oral sentence and written judgment	Hudson: Amend written judgment to conform to oral sentence	Government: Affirm judgment as entered or argue waiver	Court: Remand with instructions to correct clerical errors; no full resentencing required

United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (holding undefined prohibition on "excessive" alcohol use is impermissibly vague)
United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (same principle on alcohol-condition vagueness)
United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2014) (same principle on alcohol-condition vagueness)
United States v. Givens, 875 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 2017) (ordering correction of written judgment to add BAC definition)
United States v. Ortiz, 817 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2016) (describing travel-condition language limiting travel to a "jurisdiction" as poorly worded)
United States v. Dickson, 849 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2017) (calling similar travel condition impermissibly vague)
United States v. Johnson, 765 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2014) (oral sentence controls over written judgment when they conflict)
United States v. Barnes, 883 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2018) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right)
R.J. Corman Derailment Servs. v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs Local Union 150, 335 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003) (a party cannot waive rights it does not know are at issue)