804 F.3d 447
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- On Nov. 11, 2011, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez fired multiple rounds at the White House; no one was injured. He held paranoid beliefs and professed an intent to "take out Obama."
- He pleaded guilty to injuring a dwelling and placing lives in jeopardy (18 U.S.C. § 1363) and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), as part of a plea agreement that included a terrorism adjustment and an appeal waiver.
- The plea agreement contemplated a within-Guidelines sentence (288–330 months) and contained a broad waiver of appellate rights as to sentence length so long as the sentence was not above statutory maximum or Guidelines range.
- At sentencing the court orally imposed 300 months’ imprisonment and 60 months’ supervised release, listing standard supervised-release conditions (DNA collection, weapon prohibition) but did not mention sex-offender registration.
- The written judgment, however, mistakenly checked the sex-offender registration box (SORNA) instead of the weapon-prohibition box; neither the government nor the court had sought or identified any basis for SORNA registration.
- Ortega-Hernandez appealed; the government declined to invoke the appeal waiver as to the erroneous SORNA condition but did invoke it as to the prison-term reasonableness challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA registration may be imposed as a supervised-release condition when the oral sentence omitted it and no factual basis exists | Ortega-Hernandez: written judgment erroneously imposes sex-offender registration; should be removed | Government: concedes error and does not seek enforcement of appeal waiver on this point | Court: remanded to district court to correct written judgment to conform to oral sentence (remove SORNA) |
| Whether Ortega-Hernandez may appeal the reasonableness of his within-Guidelines 300-month prison term given his mental-health mitigation arguments | Ortega-Hernandez: sentence procedurally and substantively unreasonable; court failed to give adequate mitigating weight to mental illness | Government: enforce the plea-agreement appeal waiver as to a within-Guidelines sentence | Court: enforced waiver as knowing, intelligent, voluntary; dismissed challenge to imprisonment length |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Guillen, 561 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir.) (appeal waivers generally enforceable if knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Love, 593 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (pronouncement from the bench is the judgment of the court)
- Kennedy v. Reid, 249 F.2d 492 (D.C. Cir.) (same principle regarding oral sentence as judgment)
- United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir.) (requirement that plea and waiver be knowing and voluntary applies to each term)
- United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226 (5th Cir.) (government may invoke or waive enforcement of appeal-waiver provisions)