United States v. Ryan Pitts
670 F. App'x 375
5th Cir.2016Background
- Ryan Bradley Pitts pleaded guilty to six counts of producing child pornography under an 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement limiting his sentence to at most 60 years; the district court accepted and imposed 60 years plus lifetime supervised release.
- The district court's supervised-release order included "Additional Condition Two": the defendant must follow all lifestyle restrictions or treatment requirements imposed by the therapist and continue those restrictions to avoid risk situations during supervision.
- Pitts challenged Additional Condition Two as an improper delegation of judicial sentencing authority to a non-judicial actor (the therapist).
- Pitts did not object in district court, so the Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error: error that is clear or obvious, affects substantial rights, and warrants discretionary correction if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings.
- During the appeal the Fifth Circuit decided United States v. Morin, which struck down an identical supervised-release condition as an improper delegation; the panel applied Morin to find the condition unlawful here.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated Additional Condition Two and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Additional Condition Two unlawfully delegates judicial sentencing authority to a therapist | Pitts: condition delegates sentence-setting power to a non-judicial therapist, allowing therapist-imposed restrictions enforceable as independent supervised-release violations | Government: condition is merely coextensive with permissible treatment-compliance conditions and not an unlawful delegation | Held: Vacated condition as improper delegation; plain error established and remedied per Morin |
| Whether review should be for plain error given no district objection | Pitts: plain-error review applies but the error is clear post-Morin | Government: urged ripeness or other defenses (rejected) | Held: Plain-error review applied; Morin decided during appeal makes error clear/obvious |
| Whether the error affected substantial rights | Pitts: therapist could impose independent conditions that create separate violation grounds, impacting substantial rights | Government: condition is limited to treatment compliance (argued) | Held: Error affected substantial rights because therapist could create independent, enforceable conditions |
| Whether appellate discretion should correct the error | Pitts: court should correct to preserve judicial sentencing authority | Government: correction unnecessary | Held: Court exercised discretion to correct, citing importance of preserving judiciary's exclusive sentencing role |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Morin, 832 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 2016) (vacating identical supervised-release condition as improper delegation)
- United States v. Prieto, 801 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2015) (plain-error review framework in supervised-release context)
- United States v. Hornyak, 805 F.3d 196 (5th Cir. 2015) (timing of intervening decisions affecting plain-error clear-or-obvious prong)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (standard for exercising discretion to remedy plain error)
- United States v. Albro, 32 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting limits on delegating sentencing authority to non-judicial actors)