United States v. Young
663 F. App'x 727
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- William Young pled guilty in 2003 to a cocaine‑base conspiracy; sentenced in 2005 to 151 months imprisonment and 4 years supervised release.
- Released to supervision in April 2015; in Feb 2016 probation petitioned to revoke for multiple positive drug tests, failure to report, and skipping treatment.
- At a March 2016 revocation hearing Young (through counsel) stipulated to the violations and agreed the court could impose 8–14 months; he requested no imprisonment and placement in a halfway house instead.
- The district court concluded § 3583(g) required revocation absent an appropriate treatment‑program exception, found no exception, and orally sentenced Young to 8 months custody plus 3 years supervised release, stating the new term would include “all of the conditions that were previously imposed.”
- The written judgment, entered later, added a new residence‑at‑RRC condition (up to 120 days) and changed a mental‑health condition to a directed cognitive behavioral program; Young appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court failed to consider § 3553(a) factors when revoking supervised release and imposing 8 months custody | Young: court gave no explanation or consideration of § 3553(a), plain error review | Government: record shows court considered relevant factors; no plain error | Affirmed — court sufficiently considered § 3553(a) en masse; no plain error found |
| Whether the written judgment must match the oral pronouncement regarding supervised‑release conditions | Young: written judgment materially added/altered conditions; requests remand/resentencing | Government: oral pronouncement controls; judgment should be corrected | Reversed in part — remand with instructions to amend the written judgment to conform to oral sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cordova, 461 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2006) (explaining § 3553(a) considerations in supervised‑release revocation)
- United States v. Kelley, 359 F.3d 1302 (10th Cir. 2004) (district court need not recite magic words; may consider § 3553(a) en masse)
- United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir. 1987) (oral sentence controls over conflicting written judgment)
- United States v. Bowen, 527 F.3d 1065 (10th Cir. 2008) (remand to conform written judgment to oral sentence rather than vacating)
- United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 1999) (clerical errors in judgment may be corrected without vacating the judgment)
- United States v. Vigil, 696 F.3d 997 (10th Cir. 2012) (procedural‑reasonableness standard for revocation sentences)
- United States v. Robertson, 648 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussing that sentencing courts should say something enabling appellate inference that § 3553(a) was considered)