United States v. John Bloch, III
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10999
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- In Nov. 2011 police found a loaded Glock, an SKS rifle, and ammunition at the apartment of Bloch’s girlfriend; Bloch, a convicted felon, was arrested and later convicted on two § 922(g) counts in Apr. 2012.
- The district court initially sentenced Bloch to 138 months and 3 years supervised release; this was remanded and reduced to 120 months after merger of the § 922(g) counts on first appeal.
- A later guideline error led to vacatur and a March 23, 2015 resentencing. The district court circulated a March 18 notice listing 13 proposed supervised-release conditions and reasons for each before resentencing.
- At resentencing the court calculated a guideline range of 84–105 months, imposed 105 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release, and incorporated the March 18 notice of conditions by reference; Bloch objected only to a home-visit condition.
- On this appeal Bloch challenged (1) procedural sufficiency of findings supporting the term of supervised release, (2) failure to orally pronounce each condition from the bench, and (3) the substantive and constitutional validity of eight supervised-release conditions (only the home-visit condition was preserved).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had to provide a separate §3553(a) justification for supervised release distinct from its imprisonment justification | Bloch: court failed to state separate reasons for 3-year supervised release; must justify supervised release independently | Government/District Court: one sentence may include custody + supervised release; §3553(c) requires reasons for the sentence as a whole | Held: No separate justification required; one overarching §3553(a)-based explanation suffices and adequately supported the supervised-release term |
| Whether the court procedurally erred by not orally pronouncing each supervised-release condition from the bench | Bloch: conditions must be read aloud at sentencing to preserve rights and permit objections | Government: district court provided advance written notice and incorporated it orally; defendant had actual notice and opportunity to object | Held: No procedural error — incorporation by reference of advance notice is permissible where defendant received notice and no conflict exists between oral and written terms |
| Whether Bloch waived challenges to seven of the imposed conditions | Bloch: now contests eight conditions on appeal | Government: Bloch reviewed notice, lodged only one objection at sentencing, and therefore waived other objections | Held: Bloch waived challenges to seven conditions by knowingly objecting only to the home-visit condition |
| Validity of home-visit condition (Fourth Amendment and abuse of discretion) | Bloch: condition (meet at home or “elsewhere” and plain-view confiscation) violates Fourth Amendment and lacks adequate justification | Government: condition is reasonably related to supervision goals (monitoring, public safety, recidivism reduction) and was explained; limiting language reduces intrusion | Held: Condition upheld — consistent with precedent, reasonable justification given, and “elsewhere” clarified as public places or probation office; no Fourth Amendment or abuse-of-discretion error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Armour, 804 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2015) (explains standards for supervised-release conditions and upholds home-visit condition analysis)
- United States v. Ross, 475 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2007) (framework for §3583(d) and supervised-release condition validity)
- United States v. Adkins, 743 F.3d 176 (7th Cir. 2014) (two-step sentencing process and §3553(a) discussion)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (importance of advance notice of conditions and treating supervised release as part of the overall sentence)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (requires reasons for supervised release under §3583(c) but does not mandate separate justifications)
- United States v. Moore, 788 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2015) (remand where district court failed to find supervised release necessary)
- United States v. Downs, 784 F.3d 1180 (7th Cir. 2015) (discusses guideline calculation and consideration of §3553(a) factors for supervised release)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (Supervision’s role in reintegration and importance of post-release assistance)
- United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2014) (reducing recidivism as primary purpose of supervised release)
- United States v. Shannon, 518 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2008) (adequacy of reasons under §3553(a))