875 F.3d 387
7th Cir.2017Background
- Odell Givens was indicted (Sept. 6, 2012) on three counts of possession with intent to distribute and one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine; he pleaded guilty to all counts (Feb. 14, 2014).
- PSR computed a total offense level of 37 and criminal history IV, yielding a Guidelines range of 292–365 months; district court sentenced Givens to 186 months imprisonment and five years supervised release.
- Givens objected to a supervised release condition requiring him to remain within the court’s jurisdiction unless permitted to leave; he sought either deletion or addition of a scienter (“knowingly”) requirement.
- At sentencing the court stated a $100 special assessment per count (total $400) but did not reiterate it at the final pronouncement; the written judgment included the $400 assessment.
- The court orally prohibited “excessive” use of alcohol, defining it as BAC over .08%; the written judgment left the definition box blank.
Issues
| Issue | Givens' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of supervised release condition requiring defendant to remain within the jurisdiction unless permitted to leave | The condition should not be imposed, or at least must include a "knowingly" scienter requirement | The condition is administrative, permissible when supervised release is justified; scienter language is not mandatory | Court affirmed condition as permissible and not requiring "knowingly" here (no abuse of discretion) |
| Meaning of "jurisdiction" in the travel restriction | "Jurisdiction" should refer to the court's power (not a geographic district), so it should not confine him geographically | The term denotes the judicial district — a geographic limit necessary for supervision | Court held "jurisdiction" means the judicial district; the district court correctly so construed it |
| Inclusion of $400 special assessment in written judgment | The $400 assessment was not orally imposed at final pronouncement; inclusion in written judgment is error | The court announced the mandatory $100 per count ($400 total) earlier in the hearing; written judgment reflects that oral pronouncement | Court held the written $400 assessment conforms to the oral pronouncement (no remand) |
| Omitted definition of "excessive" alcohol use in written judgment | The written judgment omitted the court's oral definition (BAC > .08) — needs correction | The oral definition controls; written omission is a scrivener’s error that should be fixed | Court remanded limitedly to correct the written judgment to match the oral BAC > .08 definition |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Douglas, 806 F.3d 979 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for supervised-release-condition objections)
- United States v. Warren, 843 F.3d 275 (7th Cir. 2016) (characterizing travel restriction as administrative incident of supervision)
- United States v. Poulin, 809 F.3d 924 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding scienter language not required for travel restriction)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting travel condition "would be improved" with scienter language)
- United States v. Ortiz, 817 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2016) ("jurisdiction" denotes geographic judicial district in this context)
- United States v. Bonanno, 146 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 1998) (written judgment must reflect oral pronouncement; standard of review)
- United States v. Alburay, 415 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2005) (oral sentencing statements control over conflicting written judgment)