United States v. Ryan Shartzer
705 F. App'x 265
5th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant-appellant Ryan Lloyd Shartzer pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex offender (18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)).
- PSR showed a long history: serious 2003 aggravated sexual assault against his eight-year-old sister, juvenile adjudication for criminal mischief (2001), and later convictions for public lewdness and Texas failure to register (2008).
- He committed the instant offense while on parole; he fled and used a false driver’s license when apprehended.
- PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 18–24 months and a five-year Guidelines term of supervised release (statutory range five years to life).
- District court stated an incorrect range (five years to life) at sentencing, sentenced Shartzer to time served, and imposed a ten-year term of supervised release with a mental health condition.
- Shartzer appealed challenging the ten-year term and three unsanctioned special conditions; government moved to modify, and the district court amended the judgment deleting the contested conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s erroneous five-to-life range and ten-year term were plain error. | Shartzer argues error affected substantial rights. | Government concedes error and that it was clear/obvious. | We decline to correct the error under the fourth-prong. |
| Whether the challenged special conditions remain live when the judgment was amended. | Conditions not announced at sentencing should be removed. | Government sought removal; amendment rendered issue moot. | Appeal on this issue is moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, 826 F.3d 835 (5th Cir. 2016) (plain-error correction and impact on sentence within statutory range)
- United States v. Segura, 747 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2014) (recidivism and fourth-prong plain-error considerations)
- United States v. Putnam, 806 F.3d 853 (5th Cir. 2015) (vacating and remanding for incorrect range; recidivism considerations)
- United States v. Diaz, 313 F. App’x 735 (5th Cir. 2009) (utilized in related procedural discussion on plain error)
- United States v. Torres, 856 F.3d 1099 (5th Cir. 2017) (fourth-prong plain-error framework application)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (limits on correcting sentencing errors absent miscarriage of justice)
- United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2012) (slightly flexible forfeiture rule to prevent grave injustice)
- United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 821 F.3d 659 (5th Cir. 2016) (recidivist factors and non-intervention in plain-error correction)
- United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2011) (substantial rights and sentencing-error considerations)
- United States v. Castaneda-Lozoya, 812 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2016) (support for appellate standards on sentencing issues)