United States v. Jonathan Rivas-Estrada
906 F.3d 346
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Defendant Jonathan Rivas‑Estrada pleaded guilty to federal drug offenses and faced sentencing with a PSR that included recommended special supervised‑release conditions in an appendix.
- Rivas‑Estrada had time to review the PSR and file objections; his filings and counsel made no objection to the PSR’s special‑conditions appendix.
- At sentencing the district court confirmed defendant and counsel reviewed the PSR and had no objections, then imposed a term of supervised release and stated the defendant must “comply with the mandatory and special conditions that have been adopted and set forth in [his] Presentence Report.”
- The written judgment, however, included three special conditions not orally pronounced: (1) surrender for deportation after imprisonment; (2) provide requested financial information to probation; (3) participate in and pay for drug testing/treatment.
- Rivas‑Estrada appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion because the written judgment broadened the oral sentence and he had no meaningful opportunity to object; the Government urged plain‑error review and contended the written judgment merely clarified the oral pronouncement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant had a meaningful opportunity to object to special conditions | Rivas‑Estrada: district court never orally enumerated the special conditions; mere PSR reference did not give notice or chance to object | Government: referencing the PSR and counsel’s review sufficed; plain‑error review applies | Held: No meaningful opportunity; abuse‑of‑discretion standard applies |
| Whether unpronounced special conditions in the written judgment conflict with the oral pronouncement | Rivas‑Estrada: written judgment added conditions not pronounced, broadening sentence and violating right to be present | Government: the written judgment only clarified the court’s oral statement that defendant must comply with PSR conditions | Held: Written judgment broadened the oral pronouncement; oral pronouncement controls; unpronounced special conditions must be stricken |
| Standard of review when defendant had opportunity to object | N/A (contextual) | Govt argued plain‑error applies because no objection was made | Held: If defendant had a meaningful opportunity to object and failed to do so, plain‑error review applies; but here no such opportunity existed, so abuse of discretion governs |
| Remedy when written judgment conflicts with oral sentence | Rivas‑Estrada: remove unpronounced special conditions from written judgment | Government: affirm written judgment | Held: Vacate in part and remand to amend written judgment to remove the three unpronounced special conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mudd, 685 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2012) (written condition imposing testing conflicted with oral pronouncement of treatment)
- United States v. Rouland, 726 F.3d 728 (5th Cir. 2013) (plain‑error review where defendant had a unique, meaningful opportunity to object to special conditions)
- United States v. Huor, 852 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2017) (written, unpronounced restriction on contact with places frequented by minors conflicted with oral sentence)
- United States v. Morin, 832 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 2016) (judgment contained an extra PSR condition not orally imposed; defendant had no chance to object)
- United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2002) (imposition of costs in written judgment raised notice issues though related to an orally pronounced condition)
- United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2006) (defendant lacked notice when special conditions would be imposed only later in written judgment)
- United States v. Torres‑Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard conditions implicit; special conditions require specific oral pronouncement)
- United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (differences in wording between oral pronouncement and judgment did not always create conflict when they effectuated the same function)