United States v. Valerie Flores
929 F.3d 443
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- Valerie Flores pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 100 kg+ of marijuana and faced a 120-month mandatory federal sentence plus eight years supervised release.
- The probation office’s supervision plan attached to the PSR included a standard employment condition requiring Flores to maintain, seek, or obtain "suitable" employment or vocational training. The PSR justified the condition by citing rehabilitative benefits of stable employment.
- Flores filed written objections to the PSR on sentencing issues (relevant conduct and a guideline enhancement) but did not object to any supervised release conditions.
- At sentencing the court confirmed Flores had reviewed the PSR with counsel, invited objections to the proposed conditions, offered to state each condition and its justification on the record, and Flores’s counsel waived the court reading and explanation of the conditions.
- On appeal Flores argued the employment condition was unconstitutionally vague (challenging the word "suitable"). The government initially agreed to plain‑error review, but the panel concluded waiver was a threshold issue that precluded appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the employment supervised‑release condition is unconstitutionally vague | Flores: the term "suitable" is vague and fails to give fair notice of prohibited/required conduct | Government: Flores forfeited or waived review by not objecting below; if plain error applies, condition is still valid | Waived: Flores intentionally relinquished the right to challenge the condition at sentencing (waiver precludes appellate review) |
| Whether appellate review should proceed under plain‑error standard | Flores: appellate plain‑error review should apply because she didn’t raise condition below | Government: asked for plain‑error review but court treated waiver as threshold that extinguishes error | Waiver controls: plain‑error review inapplicable because Flores knowingly waived objection |
| What facts establish waiver of supervised‑release objections | Flores: (implicit) lack of specific on‑the‑record colloquy about the word "suitable" negates waiver | Court/Gov: advance notice, written PSR, defense objections to other PSR items, and express waiver of reading show informed, strategic waiver | Found: advance notice + counsel’s waiver + targeted objections = intentional relinquishment |
| Whether courts should sometimes excuse waiver for vagueness/First Amendment overbreadth | Flores: past cases sometimes excused waiver in extreme vagueness/First Amendment cases | Government/Court: prior exceptions exist but are limited and not present here | Court: exceptions in prior case law acknowledged but do not apply; waiver stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (plain‑error review requires court to determine whether defendant intentionally relinquished the alleged error)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (explaining standard for plain‑error review and necessity of determining intentional relinquishment)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinguishing waiver from forfeiture and discussing consequences for appellate review)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (advance notice of proposed supervised‑release conditions enables informed objections)
- United States v. Gabriel, 831 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2016) (same; emphasizing need for notice to preserve appellate review)
- United States v. Lewis, 823 F.3d 1075 (7th Cir. 2016) (guidance on ensuring defendants have fair opportunity to object to supervised‑release conditions)
- United States v. Adkins, 743 F.3d 176 (7th Cir. 2014) (exception where condition is both overbroad and unconstitutionally vague in a First Amendment context)