United States v. Roger Rouland
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16746
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Roger Wayne Rouland pleaded guilty to possession and attempted possession of child pornography and faced a PSR recommending a Guidelines range of 30–37 months (total offense level 19, CH I).
- At sentencing, the court admitted a probation-officer memorandum (Government Exhibit 1) recommending nine special conditions; defense counsel expressly stated “No objections” to admitting the Exhibit.
- The district court sentenced Rouland to 30 months’ imprisonment (within Guidelines), five years supervised release, $1,000 fine, and $100 assessment; no oral explanation of the sentence or oral pronouncement of specific supervised-release conditions was given.
- The written judgment, issued days later, included several special conditions (restrictions on contact with minors, residence approvals, geographic proximity limits, prohibition on sexually stimulating materials) and multiple conditions listed as standard (mental-health, substance-abuse, cognitive-behavioral treatment, workforce development participation).
- Rouland appealed, arguing (1) procedural sentencing error for lack of explanation, (2) conflict between oral sentence and written judgment requiring deletion of special conditions not orally pronounced, and (3) that certain standard-form conditions were actually special conditions requiring an oral finding that the court “has reason to believe” they are warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rouland) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court procedurally erred by failing to explain a within-Guidelines sentence | Rouland: court failed to respond to his non-Guidelines (probation) request, violating Gall and requiring explanation | Government: sentence within Guidelines, so little explanation needed; Rouland forfeited detailed objection at sentencing | Court: Error to give no explanation, but plain-error review fails—within-Guidelines sentence and Rouland shows no prejudice, affirming sentence |
| Whether special conditions in written judgment that were not orally pronounced must be deleted | Rouland: written judgment conflicts with oral pronouncement; such special conditions require the defendant’s opportunity to object at sentencing | Government: Rouland had opportunity—he expressly waived objections to Exhibit that contained the conditions | Court: Because counsel admitted the Exhibit at sentencing, Rouland had notice/opportunity; plain-error review applies and fails for lack of prejudice; special conditions upheld |
| Whether certain supervision conditions labeled standard (mental-health, substance-abuse, cognitive-behavioral, workforce programs) are actually special and required an oral finding of "reason to believe" | Rouland: PSR did not show current substance or mental-health issues; thus conditions are special and unlawfully imposed without an oral finding | Government: Record contains evidence (prior treatment, prescriptions, elevated opiate level, recommended sex-offender evaluation) supporting a reason to believe these conditions are warranted | Court: Abuse-of-discretion review; conditions are listed as standard on the Western District of Texas judgment form and record supports them; district court did not abuse discretion in imposing them |
| Standard for appellate review when written judgment conflicts with oral sentence | Rouland: conflict requires amendment; relief based on constitutional right to be present and object | Government: where defendant had opportunity to object at sentencing, plain-error review applies | Court: Reiterates that oral pronouncement controls unless defendant had notice/opportunity to object; here defendant waived objections, so plain-error review applies and fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (explains procedural and substantive review of sentences and need for explanation)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (sentencing judge should explain enough to show consideration of arguments)
- United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (within-Guidelines sentences ‘‘require little explanation’’)
- United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (plain-error review where defendant didn’t object to lack of explanation; within-Guidelines mitigates prejudice)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (standard for plain-error relief)
- United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378 (distinguishing when §5D1.3(d) mental-health/substance conditions are too subjective to be treated as standard)
- United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934 (special condition can be effectively standard when based on objective, undisputed facts and form judgment lists it)
- United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849 (defendant’s right to be present at sentencing and oral pronouncement controls)
- United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941 (failure to orally mention mandatory drug treatment creates conflict)
- United States v. Teuschler, 689 F.3d 397 (describing bifurcated reasonableness review)
- United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d 437 (cases recognizing within-Guidelines sentences lessen need for explanation)
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (plain-error review for unargued errors)