United States v. Keith Matthews, 47 F.4th 851

Matthews was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and sentenced to imprisonment followed by supervised release with drug-use and drug-testing conditions.
After release he failed three drug tests and missed others; at a November 2021 revocation hearing he admitted drug use.
The district court imposed temporary home detention as a stop-gap while parties resolved how many tests were missed; defense counsel agreed to that procedure.
At a later sentencing the court orally imposed 4 months' imprisonment and 32 months' supervised release, mentioning only drug testing among conditions.
The written judgment, however, listed 21 supervised-release conditions (4 statutory mandatory, 13 Guideline-recommended “standard” conditions, 1 drug-testing, 3 others) that were not orally pronounced.
Matthews challenged the court’s power to impose both home detention and imprisonment and argued the unpronounced discretionary conditions in the written judgment were invalid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court could impose both home detention and imprisonment for the same supervised-release violations (18 U.S.C. § 3583(e))	Matthews: statute requires a unitary choice; cannot impose home detention then imprisonment for same violation	Government: statute only limits combined term to the statutory maximum; sequential measures are lawful	Court: Matthews waived this argument by agreeing to the stop-gap home detention and later sentencing; issue not decided on the merits (waiver)
Whether discretionary supervised-release conditions must be orally pronounced at sentencing	Matthews: discretionary conditions must be pronounced in defendant’s presence; unpronounced conditions in written judgment are invalid	Government: many conditions are implicit or carry over from the original sentence and need not be re-pronounced; standard conditions need not be orally stated	Court: Discretionary conditions must be considered and orally pronounced (but may be incorporated by reference); remanded to conform written judgment to the orally pronounced sentence plus mandatory conditions

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (waiver doctrine supports forfeiture treatment when party agreed below)
United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (defendant’s right to be present at sentencing under Rule 43)
United States v. Love, 593 F.3d 1 (oral pronouncement constitutes the court’s judgment; remand to conform written judgment)
United States v. Booker, 436 F.3d 238 (written judgment conflicts with oral sentence is null to that extent)
United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (discussing need to pronounce discretionary conditions)
United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (en banc Fifth Circuit requiring pronouncement of discretionary conditions)
United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040 (Ninth Circuit view that standard conditions may be implicit)
United States v. Truscello, 168 F.3d 61 (Second Circuit treating standard conditions as implicit)