United States v. Mosley
20-10835
| 5th Cir. | Jul 21, 2021Background
- Chad Dewayne Mosley pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 230 months' imprisonment and four years' supervised release.
- At sentencing the district court stated it adopted the standard supervised-release conditions recommended by U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c).
- Mosley signed an order listing additional supervised-release terms and referring to the Commission’s standard conditions; the written judgment listed 16 "Standard Conditions of Supervision."
- Eleven of the 16 conditions matched the Guidelines’ recommended standard conditions; five conditions (numbered 3, 5, 7, 10, and 11 in the judgment) differed from the applicable Guidelines version.
- The five nonmatching conditions were not orally pronounced at sentencing, creating a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment; the Government conceded the discrepancy.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for amendment of the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement (excising the conflicting conditions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by including supervised-release conditions in the written judgment that were not orally pronounced at sentencing | Pronouncement requirement can be satisfied by adopting standard conditions and/or by referencing a document setting forth conditions (and the Government conceded the five differing conditions conflicted) | Mosley asked remand to reform the written judgment so it conforms to the oral pronouncement (remove conflicting conditions) | Affirmed in part; judgment vacated in part and remanded to amend the written judgment to conform to the oral sentence (excise the five conflicting conditions) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020) (pronouncement requirement and permissibility of satisfying it by reference to a document)
- United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2003) (conflict between oral pronouncement and written judgment requires remedy)
- United States v. Mudd, 685 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2012) (remedy is to vacate in part and remand to excise conflicting conditions)