Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03803/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03803-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Plada
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Argued December 15, 2015 

Decided January 5, 2016 

Before 

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge 

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 14-3803 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

FRANK PLADA, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 13 CR 410 

Harry D. Leinenweber, 

 Judge.

O R D E R 

Frank Plada pleaded guilty to bank robbery, see 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and was 

sentenced within the guidelines range to 151 months’ imprisonment and three years of 

supervised release. We agree with the parties that a remand for full resentencing is 

necessary because the district court failed to explain the need for supervised release. 

Plada also claims that the district court committed procedural errors when determining 

his sentence and that the sentence is unreasonable. Because we are remanding, he may 

make these arguments anew at resentencing. 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 14-3803 Document: 28 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pages: 3
No. 14-3803 Page 2 

In May 2013 Frank Plada and another person robbed a bank by passing the teller a 

note that said, “WE HAVE GUNS LOOSE BILLS ONLY.” Plada, his hand in his pocket, 

gestured as if he had a gun. The pair absconded with $1,695. 

After Plada pleaded guilty, a probation officer calculated a guidelines range of 

151 to 188 months’ imprisonment and 1 to 3 years of supervised release. The district 

court sentenced Plada to 151 months’ imprisonment. The district court also imposed 

three years of supervised release and two special conditions—“alcohol and drug 

treatment at the request of the probation office” and mental health evaluation and 

treatment—without explanation. In its written judgment, the district court included 

13 standard conditions that were not pronounced orally. 

On appeal Plada argues, and the government concedes, that the district court 

erred by imposing a term of supervised release without explaining why it was necessary 

(it was not required by statute). We agree this was error. See United States v. Moore, 

788 F.3d 693, 696 (7th Cir. 2015); United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828, 837 (7th Cir. 2015). 

Accordingly, Plada’s sentence is vacated and his case remanded for a full resentencing. 

See United States v. Harper, 805 F.3d 818, 822 (7th Cir. 2015); United States v. Downs, 

784 F.3d 1180, 1182 (7th Cir. 2015). Although Plada does not challenge the two special 

conditions of supervised release pronounced at sentencing, we note that the district 

court also failed to explain its reasons for imposing these conditions—an error which 

would independently require a remand. See Harper, 805 F.3d at 822; United States v. Falor, 

800 F.3d 407, 411 (7th Cir. 2015). 

The parties further contend that a remand is required because the district court 

failed to orally pronounce the 13 standard conditions that were included in the written 

judgment, imposed the conditions without considering the § 3553(a) factors, and 

imposed several conditions that this court has criticized as vague or overbroad. 

Conditions that are not orally pronounced at sentencing, however, are nullities, and 

Plada could have moved under Rule 36 to vacate them. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36; 

United States v. Medina-Mora, 796 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015); United States v. Johnson, 

765 F.3d 702, 711 (7th Cir. 2014). But, because we are remanding, the district court will 

have the opportunity to orally pronounce any conditions of supervised release and look 

to our recent cases—decided after Plada’s sentencing—for guidance on tailoring the 

conditions of supervised release. See Kappes, 782 F.3d at 848–62; United States v. Thompson, 

777 F.3d 368, 376–82 (7th Cir. 2015). 

Case: 14-3803 Document: 28 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pages: 3
No. 14-3803 Page 3 

Because we are vacating, it is unnecessary to address Plada’s remaining claims, 

and he can argue them again at resentencing. See United States v. Garcia, 804 F.3d 904, 908 

(7th Cir. 2015); Falor, 800 F.3d at 411. 

We VACATE Plada’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing consistent with 

this order. 

Case: 14-3803 Document: 28 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pages: 3