### In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ No. 18

- 2765
U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

v.

D EXTER F ISHER , Defendant

- Appell ant

.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indian a , Indianapolis Division

. No. 1: 15

- cr

- 00157

- 1

— Jane Magnus

- Stinson , Chief Judge

.

____________________
A RGUED S EPTEMBER 10, 2019

— D ECIDED N OVEMBER 25, 2019

____________________

Before W OOD , Chief Judge , and K ANNE and B RENNAN , Circuit Judges

. K ANNE , Circuit Judge

. In the late summer and fall of 2014, multiple pharmacies in Indianapolis were robbed at gun point. Police eventually arrested Dexter Fisher, who was later charged with nine offenses for his involvement in three of the robberies. A jury found Fisher guilty of Hobbs Act robbery, brandishing a firearm d uring a crime of violence , and being a felon in possession of a firearm

. T he district court then2 No. 18

- 2765

imposed a sentence , which included conditions of supervised release and an order that Fisher forfeit the firearm used in his offenses

. Fisher appealed his conv ictions for brandishing a firearm, the forfeiture of his firearm, and parts of his sentence relating
to supervised release. Only one alleged error needs correction: an inconsistency between the oral sentence and the written judgment , regarding whether term s of supervised release attach to certain
counts . We remand with specific instructions to correct that p ortion of the written judgment.
I. B ACKGROUND A. Fisher ’ s Conduct and Police Investigation Indianapolis experienced an increase in pharmacy robberies during the late summer and f all of 2014 . Three pharmacy robberies in August and September shared a common pattern: the robber would jump over the pharmacy counter, brandish a firearm, demand opioid pills, and leave the store immediat ely after obtaining the pills

. In October , police responded to a call from a CVS Pharmacy employee concerned that a man in the store , Fisher, had been involved in a previous robbery . The officer approached Fisher and asked for his identification. Fisher pa nicked , pushed a shopping cart into the officer
, and pulled a semi

automatic pistol from his pants as he ran through the pharmacy ’ s back exit. A n other officer apprehended Fisher a few blocks away. Officers found a Smith & Wesson semi

- automatic pistol along Fisher ’ s escape route

. This pistol was the only firearm submitted into evidence at the trial that followed

.No. 18

- 2765 3

Employees of three pharmacies that had been robbed before the October incident identified Fisher as the person responsible for those robberies. Offi cers also found on Fisher ’ s phone pictures of him in clothes identical to those worn during the robberies. B. Charges and T rial
In a nine

- count indictment, the government alleged Fisher had committed three robberies and related firearm offenses. The indictment also sought the forfeiture of any firearm or ammunition used in the charged offenses.
After a two

- day trial in March 2018, a jury found Fisher guilty of seven charged offenses: three counts of Hobbs Act robbery (Counts 1, 3, and 5), 18 U.S.C. § 1 951(a); three counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (Counts 2, 4, and 6), id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii); and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count 9), id. § 922(g)(1)

. The jury verdict did not address forfeiture.
C . Se ntencing
The p robation o ffice then prepared Fisher ’ s Presentence Investigation Report (“ PSR ”)

. B ased on Fisher ’ s three convictions for brandishing a firearm
, he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of fifty

- seven year s

. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C) (2015), amended by First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 403(a). The PSR also proposed conditions of supervised release , including one regarding psychoactive substances : “ You shall not knowingly purchase, possess, distribute, administer, or otherwise use any psychoactive substances (e.g., synthetic marijuana, bath salts, Spice, glue, etc.) that impair a person ’ s4 No. 18

- 2765

physical or mental functioning, whether or not intended for human consumption. ” ( E mphasis added).
A

t the sentencing hearing, Fisher ’ s counsel ackn owledged that he had reviewed the PSR with Fisher

. The judge noted that Fisher objected to the PSR ’ s offense

- conduct descriptions , but overrul ed the objection

. Fisher did not object to any proposed supervised

- release conditions. The judge orally sentenced Fisher to fifty

- seven years plus one day in prison

— one day more than the mandatory minimum sentence

. The judge also ordered “ the forfeiture of any firearm or ammunition involved in or used in the instant offense

. ” Neither party objected to the forfeiture

. T

urn ing to Fisher ’ s term s of supervised release , the judge sentenced Fisher to “ concurrent [supervised release] terms of one year for each of Counts 1, 3, 6 and 9 .” ( E mphasis added). The judge continued by informing Fish er of his conditions of supervised release. T he district court instructed that Fisher could not “ knowingly purchas e , possess, distribut e , administer or otherwise use any psychoactive substances that impair a person ’ s physical or mental functioning whether or not int ended for human consumption. ” The sentencing hearing concluded with the judge ask ing if either party had any objections to the proposed sentence, or if they needed her to further explain the reasoning behind the sentence. Neither party objected or request ed further explanation

. The next day, t he district court issued a written judgment. The text of the written judgment, however, differed from the sentence announced the day before

. The court ’ s written judgment stated that “[ u]pon release from imprisonment, [Fisher]No. 18

- 2765 5

shall be on supervised release for a term of 1 year per count, concurrent

. ” ( E mphasis added)

. It also included the following supervised release condition : “ [ Fisher] shall not knowingly purchase, possess, dis tribute, administer, or otherwise use any psychoactive substances (e.g., synthetic marijuana, bath salts, Spice, glue, etc.) that impair a person ’ s physical or mentalfunctioning, whether or not intended for human consumption. ” ( E mphasis added)

. Four month s later, Congress enacted the First Step Act , which amended the way defendants , like Fisher, are sentenced for convictions under § 924(c)

. II. A NALYSIS
Fisher raises five issues on appeal. First, he argues the district court erred by failing to ask if he w ould like a jury trial regarding forfeiture . Second, he argues the district court abused its discretion by us ing the broad phrase “ psychoactive substances ” in his supervised

- release conditions

. Third, he argues his convictions under § 924(c) are invalid because Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence. Fourth, he argues his written sentence is a nullity to the extent it conflicts with the sentence imposed at his sentencing hearing. Finally, he argues these errors require us to vacate his sentence and

re mand for a new sentencing hearing at which the First Step Act ought to apply

. A. Forfeiture of Fisher ’ s Firearm Fisher argues that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 by not asking Fisher whether h e wanted a jury to determine the forfeitability of his firearm

. The Rule requires:6 No. 18

- 2765

In any case tried before a jury, if the indictment or information states that the government is seeking forfeiture, the court must determine before the jury begins deliberat ing whether either party requeststhat the jury be retained to determine the forfeitability of specific property if it returns a guilty verdict. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(5)(A).
This R ule is violated when a judge does not determine if a party wants the jury to decide whether certain property is forfeitable

. See United States v. Cherry , 921 F.3d 690, 693 (7th Cir. 2019) ; United States v. Ryan , 885 F.3d 449, 454 (7th Cir. 2018)

. Because nothing in the record indicates t he judge here considered or inquire d whether Fisher would like to waive his right to a jury trial on the issue of forfeiture , 1 Rule 32.2(b)(5)(A) was violated

. But Fisher did not object to the forfeiture of his firearm. So, the forfeiture order will be vacated only if the district court ’ s
err or affected Fisher ’ s substantial rights. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); Ryan , 885 F.3d at 454

. Determining forfeit ability without inquiring whether a party would like to submi t th e issue to a jury does not affect the defendant ’ s substantial rights when “ no reasonable juror could have found there was not a sufficient nexus between the property and the offense. ” Cherry , 921 F.3d at 693 (quoting Ryan , 885 F.3d at 454). In Cherry , even though the judge violated Rule 32, the defendant ’ s substantial rights were not

1 We note that prior to trial, the judge asked the parties if they agreed to excise the forfeiture allegation from the indictment before it was read to the jury during voir dire . We do not understand this to be the district court inquiring about a waiver of a jury trial on the forfeiture issue.No. 18

- 2765 7

affected because “ Cherry was convicted of being a felon inpossession of a firearm, and the firearm at issue in the forfeiture order was the one that Cherry possessed. ” Id. The same logic applie s here. Only one firearm was submitted into evidence: the Smith & Wesson pistol found along Fisher ’ s escape route. The jury convicted Fisher of being a felon in possession of a firearm , and the judge ordered the forfeiture of any firearm used in Fisher ’ s o ffenses. It logically follows that Fisher was required to forfeit the firearm that the jury must have found him guilty of possessing; indeed, h e concedes this point

. So, no reasonable juror could have failed to find a sufficient nexus between the pistol an d Fisher ’ s conviction for possessing a firearm as a felon

. T he error in this

case therefore did not affect Fisher ’ s substantial rights , and we will not vacate the forfeiture order

. B. Fisher ’ s Supervised

- R elease C onditionsFisher next argues that the district court abused its discretion by including a supervised

- release condition prohibitin g Fisher from purchas ing , possessin g , distributin g , administ ering , or us ing psychoactive substances. He contends that the phrase “ psychoa ctive substance ” is vague and overbroad

. But Fisher did not object to this supervised

- release condition at his sentencing hearing. So, w e must preliminarily determine “whether the defendant intentionally relinquished the challenge” now presented. See Unite d States v. Flores , 929 F.3d 443, 445 (7th Cir. 2019). If the defendant intentionally relinquishes an argument, that argument is waived , and we will not review it

. United States v. Tjader , 927 F.3d 483, 485 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing United States v. Bloch , 825 F.3d 862, 873 (7th Cir. 2016) )

.8 No. 18

- 2765

A challenge to supervised

- release conditions is intentionally relinquished, and therefore waived, when: the defendant has notice of the proposed conditions, a meaningful opportunity to object, and [he] asserts (through counsel or directly) that [ he ] does not object to the proposed conditions, waives reading of those conditions and their justifications, challenges certain conditions but not the one(s) challenged on appeal, or otherwise evidences an intentional or strategi c decision not to object.
Flores , 929 F.3d at 450.
Here, Fisher evidenced an intentional decision not to object to the condition, despite meaningful opportunity to do so. He had notice of the proposed supervised

- release conditions in the PSR he received pr ior to sentencing

. Cf. id. at 449

. Thedistrict court confirmed that Fisher had an opportunity to review the PSR before the sentencing hearing. Cf. Tjader , 927 F.3d at 485. Fisher objected to the offense

- conduct descriptions in his PSR but did not object to any of his supervised

release conditions. Cf. United States v. Brown , 932 F.3d 1011, 1017 (7th Cir. 2019)

. And after the judge announced Fisher ’ s sentence, Fisher affirmatively declined further explanation of the sentence and told the district co urt he had no objections

. Cf. Flores , 929 F.3d at 449.
Under our decision in Flores , Fisher has waived this argument and we will not review his challenge to the supervised

release conditions.
C. Fisher ’ s Convictions Under § 924(c) Fisher also appeals his t hree convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), for brandishing a firearm during a crime ofNo. 18

- 2765 9

violence. He contends that Hobbs Act robbery

— the crime during which Fisher brandished a firearm

— does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence

. Fisher acknowledges that this issue is well settled in our circuit and that he raises it primarily for possible Supreme Court review

. Indeed, w e have repeatedly held that a Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence within the meaning of § 924(c)(3)(A). See, e.g. , United States v. Anglin , 846 F.3d 954, 965 (7th Cir. 2017), vacated on other grounds , 138 S. Ct. 126 (2017); United States v. Rivera , 847 F.3d 847, 849 (7th Cir. 2017); United States v. Allen , 702 F. App ’ x 457, 459 (7th Cir. 2017). W e
see no reason to re visit our prior holdings , so Fisher ’ s § 924(c) convictions stand under this circuit ’ s precedent.

D. Discrepancies Between Fisher ’ s O ral and W ritten S entences Fisher argues that the written judgment differs from the
sentence announced at the hearing in two ways . First, in the written judgment, the supervised

- release condition concerning psychoactive substances included the explanatory parenthetical suggested in the PSR

. This parenthetical was absent from the oral sentence. Second, the written judgment stated that supervised release was being imposed on all sevencounts. The sentence announced from the bench attached supervised release to only four counts. We review a claim of discrepancies between the ora l and written judgments de novo , “ comparing the sentencing transcript with the written judgment to determine whether an error occurred as a matter of law. ” United States v. Johnson , 765 F.3d 702, 710 (7th Cir. 2014 ). If an inconsistency exists between

an u nambiguous oral sentence and the written judgment, the oral sentence controls and the written judgment should be10 No. 18

- 2765

amended to reflect the oral sentence

. United States v. Bonanno , 146 F.3d 502, 511 (7th Cir. 1998) ; see also United States v. Alburay , 415 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2005).
But not all differences between the written and oral sentences amount to inconsistencies. If the oral sentence is ambiguous or broad, we may use the written judgment as clarification
, and the written judgment need not be amended

. Bonanno , 146 F.3d at 512. For example, i n United States v. Baker , the defendant argued that the payment provisions of his supervised

- release conditions should be vacated because the written judgment differed from his oral sentence . 755 F.3d 515, 528 (7th Cir. 2014). Baker ’ s oral sentence directed him to pay for treatment program s as directed; the written judgment directed him to pay spe cific individuals and entities

. Id. at 528 n.2. Althoughthe two sentences differed, we did not vacate the written judgment because “[ t]he specifications in the written judgment

... are not inconsistent with an unambiguous provisio n ” in the oral sentence. Id

. T he written judgment clarified the oral sentence by giving Baker specific instructions on who m he should pay for treatment

. Id. So, there was no reason to amend the written judgment

. S ee Bonanno , 146 F.3d 511

– 12. As we explain below, w e do not see an inc onsistency between the oral and written iterations of the psychoactive

- substances condition . But we do see a n inconsistency in the number of counts to which the written judgment and oral sentence apply terms of supervised release. 1. Psychoactive

- S ubstances Condition
First, t he difference between the psychoactive

- substances condition in the written judgment and that condition in theNo. 18

- 2765 11

oral sentence does not require correction. The judge orally announced that upon release, Fisher could not “ knowingly p urchase, possess, distribute, administer, or otherwise use any psychoactive substances that impair a person ’ s physical or mental function ing

. ” T he written judgment was more specific : “[ Fisher] shall not knowingly purchase, possess, distribute, administer, or otherwise use any psychoactive substances (e.g., synthetic marijuana, bath salts, Spice, glue, etc.) that impair a person ’ s physical or mental functioning. ” ( E mphasis added)

. Apart from the parenthetical in the written judgment,
t he se two iterations are identical

. And t h e added parenthetical is not inconsisten t with the orally announced condition. T he phrase “ psychoactive substance ” is ambiguous without any clarification. See United Sta t es v. Colson , 675 F. App ’ x 624, 627

– 28 (7th Cir. 2017) ( discussing how prohibiting all psychoactive substances would prevent a defendant from using

“ sleeping pills, certain herbal supplements, and other legal substances ”). For clarification , we can turn to the written judgment. Bonanno , 146 F.3d at 512.
There we see that t he written judgment ’ s parenthetical does clarify the oral sentence; it lists specific examples of covered psychoactive substance s

. Cf. Baker , 755 F.3d at 528 n.2. Though not perfect, t his clarification mentions multiple illegal substance s , narrow ing the scope of the prohibiti ve condition

. So, like in Baker , the additional language in the written judgment is not inconsistent with an unambiguous provision in the oral sentence. Instead, the addition seeks to clarify an ambiguous term in the oral sentence

. Thus, t he written judgment ’ s version of the psychoactive

- substances provision does not need to be amended to match the oral sentence

.12 No. 18

- 2765

However, we note that the district court retain s the authority to amend conditions of supervised release “ a t any timeprior to the expiration or termination of the term of supervised release. ” 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e)(2) . If it chooses, the court may clarify the psychoactive

- substances condition, or rewrite it entirely. Cf. Colson , 675 F. App ’ x at 628 (recommending that the district court consider prohibiting illegal mood

- altering substances rather than all psychoactive substances).

2. Applicability of Supervised R elease to C ertain C ounts
T he government agrees with Fisher that the written and oral s entences are inconsistent regarding which counts carry a term of supervised release. The oral sentence imposed concurrent supervise d

- release terms for Counts 1, 3, 6, and 9. The written judgment imposed supervised release “ for a term of 1 year per count, c oncurrent. ” Since th is section of the written judgment is inconsistent with an unambiguous pronouncement in the oral sentence, the oral sentence controls and the written judgment is a nullity to the extent it conflicts

. Bonanno , 146 F.3d at 511. So, we wil l remand with specific instructions
to amend the written judgment to adopt the language announced at Fisher ’ s sentencing hearing , imposing terms of supervised release on Counts 1, 3, 6, and 9 only

. E. R emand and the First Step Act Finally, Fisher claims th at the alleged errors in this case warrant remand for a new sentencing hearing , allowing for a determination of whether the First Step Act would apply and shorten Fisher ’ s term of imprisonment.

But w e dictate the scope of remand. United States v. Barnes , 660 F.3d 1000, 1006 (7th Cir. 2011). If we remand to correct a discrete issue, we may remand with instructions to correctNo. 18

- 2765 13

only that error without re examining other issues. United States v. Purham , 795 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir. 2015). Fisher concedes that a narrow remand would limit the district court from entertaining new arguments, including that the First Step Act applies. Appellant Br. at 36. Here, we remand to correct one discrete inconsistency between the written and oral sentences

. This correcti on requires only that the judge amend the written judgment; it does not require a new sentencing hearing. See Alburay , 415 F.3d at 790

. S o , no other issues should be addressed on remand. See United States v. Polland , 56 F.3d 776, 777

– 78 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[ W]e have the power to limit a remand to specific issue s or to order complete resentencing. ”). The district court therefore should correct the written judgment without addressing whether the First Step Act would apply and alter Fisher ’ s term of imprisonment

. III. C ONCLUSION Only one of the many errors Fisher alleged requires correction: Fisher ’ s written and oral sentences impose terms of supervised release inconsistently , on different counts

. The judgment of conviction is A FFIRMED , as well as the sentence imposed, except for the terms of supervised release. We therefore further R EMAND WITH S PECIFIC I NSTRUCTIONS for the district court to enter a corrected judgment that mirrors the oral sentence regard ing the counts to which a term o f supervised release attache s

.