United States v. Richard Higgins
739 F.3d 733
5th Cir.2014Background
- Defendant Richard Higgins pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography after agents found ~10,000 images and 2,500 videos on his computer; he had prior Louisiana convictions for sexual abuse of a 13‑year‑old (1983).
- Plea agreement included a general waiver of appellate rights except for appeals of punishment imposed in excess of the statutory maximum; Higgins acknowledged the plea and signed the agreement at rearraignment.
- The plea agreement treated Higgins’s Louisiana convictions as qualifying offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2252, making a 15‑year mandatory minimum applicable.
- The district court sentenced Higgins to 15 years’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release (SR), adding written SR conditions (drug testing cost contribution; requirement to warn co‑residents about searches).
- Higgins appealed, arguing (1) the prior convictions did not qualify under § 2252 to trigger the 15‑year minimum, (2) the written judgment’s SR conditions impermissibly broadened the oral sentence, and (3) his appellate waiver was not knowing/voluntary or did not cover his SR‑conflict claim.
Issues
| Issue | Higgins' Argument | Government / District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of appellate waiver | Waiver was not made knowingly/voluntarily | Higgins affirmed reading and understanding plea agreement; court colloquy supports voluntariness | Waiver was knowing and voluntary and bars appeal |
| Whether prior convictions qualified under § 2252 to raise mandatory minimum from 5 to 15 years | Prior convictions did not constitute "abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward" | Plea admitted prior convictions and agreement treated them as qualifying | Claim is waived by appeal waiver (15 years below statutory max) |
| Whether written SR conditions conflict with oral pronouncement and thus are not part of the sentence for waiver purposes | Only the oral pronouncement is the "sentence" for waiver purposes; written conflicts thus fall outside waiver | SR and its conditions are part of the sentence; written/oral conflict appeals are appeals of the sentence | Appeal challenging SR conditions is covered by the waiver and waived |
| Whether SR conditions imposed exceed statutory limits (thus reserved by waiver exception) | Implicit: SR terms are impermissible and therefore constitute punishment in excess of statutory maximum | No argument that the SR conditions violate § 3583 limits or exceed statutory maximum | Higgins did not show SR conditions exceed statutory limits; claim waived |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542 (5th Cir.) (appeal‑waiver enforceability standards)
- United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290 (5th Cir.) (waiver knowing where defendant read and understood plea)
- United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744 (5th Cir.) (enforcing waiver where defendant acknowledged reading agreement)
- United States v. Shaw, 920 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir.) (oral pronouncement prevails over conflicting written judgment)
- United States v. Benbrook, 119 F.3d 338 (5th Cir.) (supervised release is part of the sentence)