United States v. Feterick
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18888
7th Cir.2017Background
- Michael Feterick pleaded guilty to two bank-robbery counts and received 49 months’ imprisonment plus 3 years’ supervised release.
- Supervised-release conditions included (a) up to 104 drug tests per year and (b) participation in a substance-abuse treatment program “at the direction of a probation officer.”
- Presentence info: past recreational cocaine use in his twenties (remote), long history of marijuana use including daily use through Feb 2015 after his mother’s death, and brief past Percocet misuse; police found marijuana/paraphernalia in the hotel room he shared with his girlfriend.
- Defense objected, arguing testing and treatment were unnecessary, minimally supported by evidence, and that testing would interfere with work; counsel did not object specifically to the court’s later factual misstatement at sentencing.
- The district court imposed both conditions, stating its belief that Feterick had recent cocaine use and that testing/treatment would aid rehabilitation and public protection.
- On appeal, Feterick challenged the drug-treatment condition as procedurally flawed (based on an inaccurate fact and inadequate explanation) and as giving excessive discretion to the probation officer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court gave an adequate explanation for imposing the drug-treatment condition | The court merely incorporated its testing rationale and did not independently justify treatment | The court lawfully relied on the same factual basis as for testing and addressed rehabilitation concerns under §3553 | Court: referencing the testing rationale was permissible; explanation adequate. |
| Whether the court relied on an erroneous factual finding (recent cocaine use) when imposing the treatment condition | The judge misstated that Feterick used cocaine recently; that error undermines the basis for treatment | Govt: judge’s comment can be read as identifying marijuana timing and did not reflect a factual error; plain-error review applies | Court: judge misstated timing of cocaine use; error not harmless as it likely affected the decision to require treatment. |
| Remedy for the procedural error in imposing the treatment condition | Vacate only the treatment condition (or excise it) and leave remainder intact | Govt: seeks to uphold sentence; argues error review is plain error and harmless or limited | Court: vacated the treatment condition and remanded for limited resentencing to reconsider that condition free of the misapprehension. |
| Whether to address claim that treatment condition gives too much discretion to probation officer | Feterick raised overbreadth of discretion | Govt: not addressed on merits because remand may eliminate need to decide | Court: did not decide; left for district court on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Poulin, 809 F.3d 924 (7th Cir. 2016) (sentencing errors are remedied by returning the case for reconsideration)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (remand required when sentencing court relied on erroneous facts)
- United States v. Dickson, 849 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2017) (full resentencing required only if error could have affected other sentence components)
- United States v. Anglin, 846 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2017) (same principle regarding scope of resentencing)