Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13846/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13846-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cory Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13846

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CORY SMITH, 

a.k.a. Gavin White,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00411-TWT-CMS-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-13846 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13846

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and ABUDU, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Cory Smith appeals his sentence for money laundering. 18 

U.S.C. §§ 2, 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). Smith argues that the district court 

erred when it pronounced the standard conditions of his supervised 

release at sentencing without orally describing or justifying each 

condition.

We review de novo “whether a defendant ‘had no opportunity to object at sentencing because the court included the [conditions] for the first time in its written final judgment.’” United 

States v. Hayden, 119 F.4th 832, 838 (11th Cir. 2024) (quoting United 

States v. Rodriguez, 75 F.4th 1231, 1246 n.5 (11th Cir. 2023). When a 

defendant has notice of the standard conditions of supervised release and fails to object, we review for plain error. Id. We review 

the adequacy of the court’s sentencing explanation de novo, even if 

the defendant did not object below. United States v. Hamilton, 66 

F.4th 1267, 1274 (11th Cir. 2023).

The parties dispute the applicable standard of review. The 

government argues that plain error review applies because Smith 

had adequate notice of the standard conditions of release and failed 

to object, and Smith argues that we should review his challenge de 

novo because he had no opportunity to object. We agree with the 

government. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13846 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2024 Page: 2 of 4
23-13846 Opinion of the Court 3

Hayden controls our standard of review. Smith had adequate 

notice of the standard conditions of supervised release when the 

district court orally pronounced that he must “comply with the 

standard conditions of supervision that have been adopted by this 

court” and solicited objections. See Hayden, 119 F.4th at 838. Because Smith did not object to his conditions of supervised release, 

we review his challenge for plain error. See id.

Under Hayden, the district court did not err, much less 

plainly err, when it failed to describe the conditions of supervised 

release in its oral pronouncement. In Hayden, we held that the district court did not err by failing to describe each condition of supervised release in its oral pronouncement when it referenced the 

standard conditions adopted by the district court, which were publicly available, tracked the standard conditions in the relevant sentencing guideline, and did not conflict with the written judgment. 

Id. at 838–39. As in Hayden, the district court stated that Smith 

would need to comply with the publicly available standard conditions of supervised release adopted by the district court, which 

matched the standard conditions in the relevant sentencing guideline. See id.; Standard Conditions of Supervision, U.S. DIST. CT. FOR 

THE N.D. OF GA., https://perma.cc/H75J-HHN5 (last visited Dec. 

20, 2024); United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.3(c) 

(Nov. 2023). And those conditions did not conflict with the written 

judgment. See Hayden, 119 F.4th at 838–39.

Smith also argues that the district court erred by failing to 

explain how the standard conditions of supervised release were 

USCA11 Case: 23-13846 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13846

necessary under the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a), or were tailored to his individual circumstances. The district court is required to state the reasons for the imposition of its 

sentence. Id. § 3553(c). But a district court is not required to make 

separate explanations for the term of imprisonment and term of 

supervised release. Hamilton, 66 F.4th at 1275. It satisfies its obligation if the record establishes that it has “considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis” for its sentencing decision. Id. at 

1276 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have not 

held that the district court must articulate how each standard condition of supervised release is related to the sentencing factors, and 

the relevant statute and sentencing guideline impose no such requirement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3. The district 

court complied with section 3553(c) when it mentioned the nature 

and circumstances of the offense, Smith’s history and characteristics, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the 

offense, afford adequate deterrence, promote respect for law, and 

avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

It considered both the seriousness of Smith’s offense alongside his 

lack of criminal history. That explanation was sufficient to explain 

why the standard conditions of supervised release were appropriate. See Hamilton, 66 F.4th at 1276.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-13846 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2024 Page: 4 of 4