United States v. Olivia Reyes, 18 F.4th 1130

Olivia Reyes pleaded guilty to importing methamphetamine and heroin and received a written PSR recommending a limited search condition (probation officer, reasonable suspicion) and a Guidelines range of 151–188 months.
At sentencing the district court imposed a 78‑month custodial sentence (below the Guidelines) and orally ordered supervised release with a broadened search condition allowing searches by "probation officer or any peace officer."
Reyes’s counsel objected but was cut off; the written judgment further expanded the search condition to allow searches by any law enforcement "at any time with or without a warrant, and with or without reasonable suspicion."
On appeal Reyes argued the court violated United States v. Wise by imposing a non‑Guidelines special supervised‑release condition without advance notice; the Government argued Wise was superseded by Irizarry and that any notice objection was forfeited.
The Ninth Circuit held Wise remains binding, reviewed the notice issue de novo (because counsel lacked a fair opportunity to object), vacated the supervised‑release conditions and remanded for limited resentencing on supervised release, but affirmed the 78‑month custodial sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by imposing an expanded suspicionless search condition without advance notice	Reyes: Wise requires advance notice before imposing a special supervised‑release condition not in the Guidelines	Government: Wise was effectively overruled by Irizarry; no notice required for sentencing choices	Held: Wise remains good law for special supervised‑release conditions; lack of notice was error; supervised‑release portion vacated and remanded
Standard of review for Reyes’s notice objection	Reyes: objected at sentencing and was deprived of a real opportunity to be heard, so review should be de novo	Government: objection not preserved on notice grounds; review only for plain error	Held: de novo review because the court interrupted counsel and denied a real opportunity to object
Whether the court plainly erred by failing to address Reyes’s Mendoza downward‑departure/variance argument	Reyes: Guidelines overstate culpability because she lacked knowledge/control of drug purity/quantity	Government: no specific below‑the‑belt objection at hearing; review is plain error	Held: no plain error — court’s explanation and substantial downward variance made reversal unnecessary

United States v. Wise, 391 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2004) (requires notice before imposing a supervised‑release condition not listed in the Guidelines)
Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008) (no rule requiring advance notice before imposing a variance from the Guidelines for custodial sentences)
Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 (1991) (notice required before a court‑initiated upward departure under the then‑mandatory Guidelines)
United States v. Lopez, 258 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2001) (distinguishing Burns where the condition was contemplated by the Guidelines)
United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2009) (preservation/plain‑error discussion where counsel had opportunity to litigate condition)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error doctrine framework)
United States v. Mendoza, 121 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 1997) (permitting downward departure where defendant lacked control/knowledge of drug quantity)
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining when a district court should address a specific sentencing argument)
Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (panel may not disregard binding Ninth Circuit precedent absent irreconcilable Supreme Court or en banc authority)