United States v. Xavier Grogan, 977 F.3d 348

Grogan was arrested in Midland, Texas, with methamphetamine and an empty pocket where a recently sold .22 revolver had been; he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a firearm.
The PSR, provided six weeks before sentencing, recommended three special supervised-release conditions: substance-abuse treatment (including abstinence and testing), a probation search condition, and disclosure/release of financial information.
At sentencing Grogan and counsel confirmed they had reviewed the PSR multiple times and raised no objections; the district court adopted the PSR and orally imposed truncated versions of the three recommended conditions, referencing the district’s standing search condition.
The written judgment entered days later included the PSR’s full, verbatim text for those three conditions; Grogan appealed, claiming the written judgment imposed more burdensome conditions than were pronounced orally.
The Fifth Circuit, after awaiting its en banc decision in United States v. Diggles, analyzed whether the court’s oral shorthand constituted adoption of the PSR/standing-order conditions and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Grogan's Argument	Held
Whether the written judgment added more burdensome supervised-release conditions than the court orally pronounced	Government: The oral pronouncement adopted the PSR/standing-order conditions; the written judgment merely restated those adopted conditions	Grogan: The written judgment contains fuller, more burdensome conditions than the truncated oral pronouncement and thus expands supervision without the defendant present	Court: Affirmed — the district court’s oral shorthand constituted adoption of the PSR and standing-order conditions; Grogan had advance notice and forfeited objection, so no plain error and no disparity between oral and written terms

United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020) (district court may orally adopt written PSR or standing-order conditions; oral adoption gives defendant opportunity to object)
United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001) (sentences must be orally pronounced)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 470 U.S. 522 (1985) (defendant’s right to be present at sentencing proceedings)
United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2006) (written judgment cannot add burdensome restrictions the court did not pronounce)
United States v. Rosario, 386 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2004) (same principle regarding written judgments adding restrictions)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for forfeited sentencing objections)
United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2016) (confirming that oral adoption of PSR-recommended conditions gives defendant opportunity to object)
United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2003) (courts may orally adopt judge-specific standing orders listing conditions)