[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 22

- 12315

____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ELIESER PEREIRA DELGADO,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:17

- cr

- 20441

- KMM

- 8

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 1 of 212 Opinion of the Court 21

- 13377

Before J ORDAN , R OSENBAUM , Circuit Judges, and M ANASCO , D i s t r i c t J u d g e

. ∗
PER CURIAM:
Based on his participation in a fraudulent Medicare billing scheme run through several Florida pharmacies, Petitioner Elieser Pereira Delgado pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire and healthcare fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The district cour t sentenced Delgado to 108 months of incarceration followed by three years of supervised release and imposed a forfeiture money judgment of $2,200,779. On appeal, Delgado raises four 1 issues about his sentence: (1) the denial of a Sentencing Guidelines r eduction for acceptance of responsibility ; (2) the increase of his Guidelines offense level for his use of sophisticated means in the scheme ; (3) the amount of the forfeiture judgmentthat the court imposed against him; and (4) the district court’s pronou ncement of the conditions of his supervised release

.After careful consideration and with the benefit of oral argument, w e vacate and remand as to the forfeiture money judgment and conditions of supervised release but affirm in all other respects.

∗ The Honorable Anna M. Manasco , U.S. District Judge for the Nor thern District of Alabam a, sitting by designation.

1 Delgado raised but then withdrew a nother cl aim related to the use of intended loss rather than actual loss for sentencing computation purposes. Since that claim is no longer before us, we do not address it here. USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 2 of 2122

- 12315 Opinion of the Court 3

B ACKGROUND Delgado was charged in a 39

- count superseding indictment with conspiracy to commit wire and healthcare fraud
, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349
, and healthcare fraud
, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347. To accomplish the fraud, Delgado and his co

- defendants submitted false and fraudulent Medicare reimbursement claims for nine Florida pharmacies. In the scheme, Delgado acted as a patient and prescription recruiter, getting paid for providing Medicare beneficiary information and prescriptions. In t otal, the nine pharmacies involved in the scheme submitted about $10,678,160 in fraudulent claims and received roughly $4,857,235 in Medicare payments. Delgado agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire and healthcare fraud
, in viola tion of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. In th e plea agreement, the parties jointly recommended that the court find, among other things , that the offense level should bereduced by three levels based on Delgado’s acceptance of responsibility . Specifically, the agreemen t recommended a two

- level decrease under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) based on Delgado’s “ recognition and affirmative and timely acceptance of personal responsibility ” and a one

- level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) based on Delgado’s timely notification of his intention to enter a guilty plea. But the plea agreement released the government from its obligation to recommend an acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction if, among other events, Delgado “ commit [t ed] any misconduct after entering USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 3 of 214 Opinion of the Court 22

- 12315 into this plea agreemen t, including but not limited to, committing a state or federal offense, [or] violating any term of release .” Following a plea colloquy, Delgado entered a guilty plea. In preparation for sentencing , the U.S. Probation Office submitted its Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”). As relevant here, the PSI determined the following:

1. Delgado was accountable for an intended loss of $4,429,275 and an actual loss of $2,200,779, the billed and paid amounts for the four Miami pharmacies for which Delgado recruited.

2. A two

- level increase in the base offense level applied because of Delgado’s use of “sophisticated means .” 3. An acceptance

- of

- responsibility adjustment was not recommended because Delgado tested positive for coc aine six times while on bond and did not attend mandatory drug treatment. S o in the PSI’s judgment, Delgado had not “voluntarily terminated or withdrawn from criminal conduct .”Delgado filed objections to the PSI, specifically to its recommended denial of an acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction. Delgado argued that he should receive a sentence reduction despite hiscocaine use because he had been diagnosed with substance addiction and had immediately notified the government of his intention to plead g uilty. Delgado’s proposed alternative sentencing recommendation, which he submitted with his objections, included a sophisticated

- means enhancemen t

. And in fact, Delgado did not USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 4 of 2122

- 12315 Opinion of the Court 5 object to the application of the sophisticated

- means enhancement in his obje ctions. At the sentencing hearing, the district court denied Delgado’s request for a downward variance . It r eason ed that Delgado’s cocaine use while on bond was “inconsistent with acceptance” of responsibility
, and given the nature of the conspiracy, a downward variance was not warranted. Before that happened, t he prosecutor stated he had “ no objection if [Delgado] receives acceptanc e. ” B ut the court noted its “ unique position to assess whether a defendant is entitled to an acceptance of responsibility ” and denied the reduction anyway

. Ultimately
, the district court sentenced Delgado to 108months of incarceration followed by three years of supervised release and imposed a forfeiture money judgment of $2,200,779. Delgado appealed to this Court

. JURISDICTION
The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and jurisdiction over Delgado’s challenges to his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). Delgado timely filed his appeal: the district court enteredits final judgment and commitment order on July 8, 2022, and Delgado filed his n otice of appeal on July 11, 2022.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a defendant’s sentence under “ the deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standar d, ensuring first that the district court USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 5 of 216 Opinion of the Court 22

- 12315committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the sentencing guidelines range. ” United States v. Wilson
, 979 F.3d 889, 916 n.16 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Almedina , 686 F .3d 1312, 1314

– 15 (11th Cir. 2012) ). We review “ the sentencing court ’ s factual findings for clear error and its interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines to those facts de

novo

. ” Id . (citing United States v. Maddox , 803 F.3d 1215, 1220 (11th Cir. 2015) )

. When a party does not object to an enhancement or other issue at sentencing, we review for only plain error. United States v. Cingari , 952 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Beckles , 565 F.3d 832, 842 (11th Cir. 2009) )

. The party claiming error bears the burden of prov ing that (1) error occurred ; (2) th e error is plain or obvious; (3) it affect s his substantial rights in that it was prejudicial and not harmless; and (4) it “ seriously affects the fairness, in tegrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Id. A n error affects a defendant ’ s substantial rights if it “ ‘ affect [s] the outcome of the district court proceedings ,’ ” including the Guidelines range calculated and sentence imposed. United States v. Malone , 51 F.4th 1311, 1319 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) ).
We review a district court’s denial of an acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction for clear error
, and we wi ll not set such a denial aside ‘ “ unless the facts in the record clearly establish that a defendant has accepted personal responsibility. ’ ” United States v. Singh , 291 F.3d 756, 764 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 6 of 2122

- 12315 Opinion of the Court 7
Sawyer , 180 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11 th Cir.1999) )

. We’ve also explained that the district court is in the best position to assess “a defendant’s apparent sincerity ,” so we give “ special deference ” to district

- court determinations on acceptance

- of

- responsibility reductions. United States v. Williams , 340 F.3d 1231, 1241 (11th Cir. 2003). Finally, we’ve observed that a defendant lacks the chance at sentencing to object “ to the discretionary conditions of supervised release because the y [are] included for the first time in the written judgment

. ” United States v. Rodriguez , 75 F.4th 1231, 1246 n.5 (11th Cir. 2023) (citing United States v. Bull , 214 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2000) )

. So we review challenges to those conditions de novo

. Id.
DISCUSSION

I. Acceptance

- of

- Responsibility Reduction Delgado’s first claim on appeal

— and the only objection he raised below

— is that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not grant an acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction. He argues both that the district court erroneously believed it could not grant an acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction and that the government breached its plea agreement by failing to recommend such a reduction. We conclude t hat the district

court recognized and acted within its discretion . And as for Delgado’s contention about the government’s failure to uphold its bargain , even if t hat’s technically true
, we cannot say that any breach here change d the outcome of the sentenc ing proceedings

. USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 7 of 218 Opinion of the Court 22

- 12315 The Sentencing Guidelines authorize a two

- level reduction whe n “ the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense ” and an additional one

- level reduction if the defendant “ timely notif [ies] authorities of his i ntention to enter a plea of guilty .” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. But the mere fact that a defendant pleads guilty does not entitle him under § 3E1.1 to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. United States v. Mathews , 874 F.3d 698, 709 (11th Cir. 2017) ; see also U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmts. n.3, 5. And we give “great deference” to a district court’s determination about whether to grant the reduction. Id. So while we typically view a guilty plea as “ significant evidence of acceptance of responsibility, ‘this evi dence may be outweighed by conduct of the defendant that is inconsistent with such acceptance of responsibility.’” Id

. (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.3 ). In deciding whether to grant a reduction, the district court “may consider a broad variety of evid ence

. ” Id

. Here, we cannot conclude that the district court’s denial of an acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction was procedurally unreasonable . Rather, the district co urt’s decision fell within its broad discretion. The PSI noted that Delgado tested positive for cocainesix times while on bond and did not attend mandatory drug treatment. It further recommended against the acceptance reduction b ecause Delgado “ha[d] not voluntarily terminated or withdrawn from criminal conduct.” Notin g this finding, the district court reasoned that Delgado “did violate the terms and conditions of his bond through his drug use while he was on bond. So, I think the Court is in a unique position to assess whether a defendant is entitled USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 8 of 2122

- 12315 Opinion of the Court 9

to an acceptance o f responsibility. His behavior is inconsistent with that acceptance. So, I’ll note the objection and deny it.” ( E mphasis added).

A s we’ve noted, a district court has “broad discretion to grant or deny a reduction under § 3E1.1.” Mathews , 874 F.3d at 7 09

. And t o be sure, “ failed drug test [s]” do not mean “ that, as a matter of law, [the defendant] loses his acceptance of responsibility” reduction. Id. (quotations omitted). But a district court does not commit clear error when, in the exercise of discr etion, it denies the acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction based on post

- arrest drug

use. See, e.g. , United States v. Pace , 17 F.3d 341, 34 4 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that the district court did not err in denying an acceptance

of

- responsibility reduction based on marijuana use while on bond
, even if unrelated to the offense of conviction) ; United States v. Scroggins , 880 F.2d 1204, 1216 (11th Cir. 1989) (same , for post

- arrest cocaine use). Here, the record indicates that the district court understood that it could grant an acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction but chose not to do so given its “unique position” at sentencing. In other words, the district c ourt recognized its discretion but exercised that discretion to deny a reduction based on “conduct ” that it found to be “ inconsistent with such acceptance of responsibility.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 3

. Our precedent does not require anything

more

. So we conclude that the district court did not commit clear error when it den ied an acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction. USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 9 of 2110 Opinion of the Court 22

- 12315

We turn to Delgado’s claim that the government breachedits plea agreement. Because Delgado did not raise this issue at sentencing , we r eview for plain error only

. See Malone , 51 F.4th at 1319. We’ve explained that the government breaches a plea agreement if

“ it fails to perform” in line with its promises in the plea agreement

. United States v. Hunter , 835 F.3d 1320, 1324 (11th Cir. 201 6). So first, we must consider “the scope of the government’s promises.” United States v. Copeland , 381 F.3d 1101, 1105 (11th Cir. 2004). The unambiguous language of the plea agreement controls. Id . Here, the government promised to “recommend” to the district court that Delgado’s Guidelines calculation “be reduced by 3 levelsbased on the defendant’s recognition and affirmative and timely acceptance of personal responsibility.” “Recommend” means “ to suggest (an act or course of action) as advisable ” 2

— in other words, affirmative advocacy on behalf of the acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction.

A t o ral argument , the government conceded that Delgado’s positive drug tests could have resulted from pre

- plea drug use, so it was not relieved of its obligation under the language of the plea agreement to recommend the acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction. See Malone , 51 F.4th at 1321 (finding under a similarly worded plea agreement that the government was not released from its agreement to recommend an acceptance

- of

- responsibility

2 Recommend , M ERRIAM -W EBSTER D ICTIONARY (last visited Sept. 29, 2023)
, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recommend [ https://perma.cc/H72Z- FELZ ]. USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 10 of 2122

- 12315 Opinion of the Court 11 reduction by “only [the defendant’s] post

- arrest, pre

- plea conduct”). In ot her words, the government breached its agreement if it failed to “recommend” that Delgado receive an acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction.We therefore review the prosecutor’s statements during sentencing to determine whether the government upheld its pl ea

agreement obligation to recommend the acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction . The prosecutor said, I don’t quarrel with probation that one could not award him acceptance of responsibility because he’s violated the law by virtue of his cocaine use. But under the circumstances, your Honor, I think he does have a drug problem. Your Honor had remanded him when he tested positive the last time, after your initial review of this matter. So, I have no objection if he receives acceptance

. ( E mphasis added). The prosecutor’s statement that he had “no objection” to the reduction falls short of affirmatively recommending an acceptance

of

- responsibility reduction

. Yet t he prosecutor ’s respon se was generally consistent with favoring a reduction

. Indeed, the pros ecutor’s reference to Delgado’s “drug problem” reflects a recognitionthat drug use did not necessarily mean that Delgado had not accepted responsibility. But though the prosecutor may not have violated the spirit of the plea agreement, his failure to affi rmatively recommend the acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction did USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 11 of 2112 Opinion of the Court 22

- 12315 technically breach the government’s promise to “recommend” such an adjustment

. See Hunter , 835 F.3d at 1324

. E ven so , though, th at breach did not “ affect [] [Delgado’s] substantial rights ” because it did not “affect the outcome of the district court proceedings,” namely, “his sentence.” See Malone , 51 F.4th at 1320 (quoting Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135). T o the contrary, t he district court explain ed
, “I appreciate the gove rnment’s not taking any objection to that, but nonetheless . . . I’ll note the objection and deny it. ” In other words , the district court determined based solely on its own view of the facts that, regardless of the government’s recommendation, it thought the acceptance reduction was not warranted

. These facts distinguish this case from others in which we have found breach. See, e .g. , Malone , 51 F.4th at 1321 (finding that the government breached the plea agreement “by arguing against

an acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction based on [the defendant’s] pre

- plea conduct
, ” a s the court “relied in part” on that argument); Hunter , 835 F.3d at 1328 (same, where the government “persisted in actively and formally opposing the reduction” based sol ely on an adverse credibility finding at a prior suppression hearing). Because the district court independently determined that itwould not award the acceptance reduction, regardless of the government’s position, we cannot say that the government’s brea ch affected Delgado’s “substantial rights

. ” So we affirm Delgado’s sentence in this respect.
II. Sophisticated

- m eans Enhancement USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 12 of 2122

- 12315 Opinion of the Court 13 Next, Delgado asserts that the government erred in imposing a sophisticated

- means enhancement. The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two

- level enhancement if the offense “involved sophisticated means and the defendant intentionally engaged in or caused the conduct constituting sophisticated means.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10) . Commentary to § 2B1.1 defines “sophisticated means” as “especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of an offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.9(B) . Indicia of sophisticated means include “hiding assets or transactions, or both, through the use of fictit ious entities, corporate shells, or offshore financial accounts.” Id. But we’ve also upheld application of the sophisticated

- means enhancement when defendants have concealed their crimes “ in a variety of ways ” that the Application Note does not expressly mention. United States v. Feaster , 798 F.3d 1374, 1381 (11th Cir. 2015)

. Still, though, we may not review an issue on appeal that the defendant waived in the district court by inviting the alleged error. Uni ted States v. Brannan , 562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009). Here, Delgado invited any error in his written objection s to the PSI

. More specifically, when Delgado filed written objections to the PSI’s recommendation against acceptance of responsibility
, he suggested that his “Sentencing Guideline Computation should be calculated” through an alternative list that included a two

- level sophisticated

- means “[a]djustment per §2B1.1(b)(10)(C) .” ( E mphasis added). Then, after inviting the court pre

- sentencing t o apply the sophisticated

- means enhancement, Delgado objected at sentencing
to only the denial of the acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction and USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 13 of 2114 Opinion of the Court 22

- 12315

affirmed that the PSI’s G uidelines calculation was otherwise correct. Th ese actions invited any error as to ap plication of the sophisticated

- means enhancement.

But e ven if they didn’t
, we would find no reversible error. Because Delgado failed to object in the district court to the application of the sophisticated

- means enhancement
, we would review for plain error . And here, we cannot say that the district court’s imposition of the sophisticated

- means enhancement was plainly

erroneous. Delgado’s participation in the fraud had several indicia of sophistication
, including but not limited to his use of a shell company to receive proceeds . For instance, Delgado’s conduct spanned roughly three years, involve d fa lse documents in the form of fake drug prescriptions, and resulted in an actual loss of over $ 2 million. Our precedent holds that, t aken together, charac teristics like these support a finding of sophisticated means. Cf. Feaster , 798 F.3d at 13 82 (finding that repetitive conduct that “went undetected for two years” supported a sophisticated means enhancement) ; United States v. Ghertler , 605 F.3d 1256, 1268 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that the defendant’s use of “forged false company documents . . . over an extended period of time . . . support[ed] the district court’s finding ” of sophisticated means)

. A n error is not plain unless it is ‘ “clear under current law. ’ ” Cingari , 952 F.3d at 1305 ( quoting United States v. Castro , 455 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) ). Under our precedent,

t hat means the district court must have acted contrary to “the explicit language of a statute or rule” or “precedent from the USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 14 of 2122

- 12315 Opinion of the Court 15 Supreme Court or this Court” that “directly resolv[es]” the issue. United States v. Lejarde

- Rada , 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir.2003 ) (percuriam) (citation omitted). “In the absence of any controlling precedent” or statutory text, th ere is no plain error. Id. Here, the district court’s application of the sophisticated

means enhancement does not conflict with the express text of theGuideline. Nor are we aware of a Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit opinion directly on point that hold s that the district court’s application of the sophisticated

- means enhancement is improper inthese circumstances. As a result, even if we ignored the invited error here, we would still affirm the district court’s application of the sophisticated

- means en hancement.
III. Conditions of Supervised ReleaseDelgado next challenges his conditions of supervised release . He contends that the district court’s written judgment contains discretionary conditions that the court did not impose orally at sentencing , so remand is warranted. We agree. “When the oral pronouncement of a sentence varies from the written judgment, the oral prono uncement governs.” United States v. Chavez , 204 F.3d 1305, 1316 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted) . Appellate review follows a two

- step inquiry. First, we determine whether the oral and written conditions of supervise d release

“ unambiguously conflict [ ].” See United States v. Bates , 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2000). Second, i f so, we must direct a limited remand with instructions for the district court to “enter an amended judgment that conforms to its oral pronouncement .” Chavez , 204 USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 15 of 2116 Opinion of the Court 22

- 12315

F.3d at 1316

. But whe n there is merely ambiguity, “as opposed to aconflict between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, ” the written judgment governs. United S tates v. Purcell , 715 F.2d 561, 563 (11th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted)

. We evaluate the district court’s intent “b y reference to the entire record .” Id. We distinguish between mandatory conditions, which a

court must impose under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), an d discretionary conditions, which a court may impose. Though a district court need not orally state mandatory conditions in the defendant’s presence, “a district court must pronounce at the defendant’s sentencing hearing any discretionary conditions of su pervised release.” United States v. Rodriguez
, 75 F.4th 1231, 1246 (11th Cir. 2023). The district court need not articulate each condition individually; rather, it may

“ satisfy this requirement by referencing a written list of supervised release conditio ns ,” such as those “ in the defendant ’ s PS [I] or in a standing administrative order. ” Id. In this way, the court “ affordsany defendant who is unfamiliar with the conditions the opportunity to inquire about and challenge them ” and thus satisfies due process. Id. At sentencing, the district court stated that Delgado “shall comply with the mandatory and standard conditions of supervised release.” The written judgment contained nine “ [s] tandard [c] onditions” that § 3583(d) does not impose, includi ng “meet[ing] family responsibilities and notifying the probation office of a change of residence at least ten days before any change of USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 16 of 2122

- 12315 Opinion of the Court 17

residence occurs.” 3 These “ [s] tandard [c] onditions” closely resemble the standing conditions for probation and superv ised release that appear in the district court’s Administrative Order No. 1988

- 06. 4 But the district court did not expressly reference Order No.
1988

- 06 when it impos ed its “ [s] tandard” conditions. And the written judgment differs from Order No. 1988

- 06 in that it requires ten days ’ advance notice of a change in address or employment, rather than 72 hours’ notice. 5 As a result, we cannot entirely resolve any lack of clarity as to the meaning of “ [s] tandard [c] onditions” by looking solely to Order No. 1988

- 06. We recently considered a similar situation in Rodriguez

. There, “ the district court announced that [the defendant’s] sentence included a five

- year term of supervised release but did not

3 Delgad o does not challenge the “special” conditions imposed, as the district court’s oral pronouncement of those conditions is consistent with its written judgment and the PSI.

4 S.D. Fla. Admin

. Ord . No. 1988

- 06 , Standing Conditions of Probation and Supervise d Release ( Feb. 29, 1988), https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/files/adminorders/1988-06.pdf [ https://perma.cc/862T- LQCS ]. In 2013, t he monthly supervision report deadline was extended from five to fifteen days

. S.D. Fla. Admin

. Ord . No. 2013

- 21, Amendment to Condition #2 of the Conditions of Supervised Release and Probation of a Judgment and Commitment Order ( Apr. 10, 2013), https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/files/adminorders/2013-21.pdf [ https://perma.cc/4R52- W2U5 ].

5 Order No. 1988

- 06 has one additional condition: that the defendant “not commit another federal, state, or local crime during the term of supervision.” Since this is also a mandatory condition under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and already in the written judgment, no conforming action is necessary

. USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 17 of 2118 Opinion of the Court 22

- 12315 identify any conditions of supervised release or reference any written list of conditions. ” 75 F.4th at 1246. In its written judgment, though , the court “ added 13 discretionary conditions of supervised release ,” largely consistent with those in the same administrative order relevant here, Order No. 1988

- 06

. Id. We held that “ the mereexistence of an administrative order recommending certain conditions of supervised release, without in

- court adoption of that list by the sentencing court, ” was insufficient to satisfy due process, and the government h ad not met its burden of showing harmless

error. Id. at 1249. So we remanded for the district court, “ after giving [the defendant] an opportunity to be heard
, [to] reconsider whether to impose each of the discretionary conditions .” Id.
To be sure , the facts here are distinguishable from those in Rodriguez , as the district court at least referenced “standard conditions of supervised release” to which Delgado would be subject. But the district court did not refer to Order No. 1988

- 06 specifically

or even its administrative orders generally. Its oral pronouncement fell short of “in

- court adoption” of Order No. 1988

- 06 , Rodriguez
, 75 F.4th at 1249 . Nor did the court otherwise articulate the “standard” conditions of supervised release imposed. And since the conditions in the written judgment did not exactly match those in Order No. 1988

- 06, we cannot assume the court’s intention was to incorporate that order. See Pu rcell , 715 F.2d at 563. Nor can we assume that, because Order No. 1988

- 06 is publicly available, Delgado had “ the opportunity to inquire about and challenge ” the “standard” conditions of supervised release at sentencing. See Rodriguez , 75 F.4th at 1246. USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 18 of 2122

- 12315 Opinion of the Court 19 Rather, the district court needed to “orally pronounce . . .any discretionary conditions of supervised release,” either individually or by reference to its administrative order. Rodriguez , 75 F.4th

at 1246. We remand so the district court may enter an a mendedjudgment and orally clarify the discretionary conditions of supervised release, either by explicit reference to Order No. 1988

- 06 , if that is what it has decided to impose , or by articulating the conditions individually.
IV. Forfeiture Money Judgment

F inally, we vacate and remand the forfeiture money judgment entered against Delgado. The district court imposed a forfeiture money judgment of $2,200,779 without finding that Delgado personally received proceeds in that amount. Delgado contends that this was plain error, and t he government concedes this point on appeal.
Since Delgado failed to challenge the forfeiture money judgment at sentencing, we review this claim for plain error . A decision that contravenes our or the Supreme Court’s “controlling p recedent ” commits plain error. Lejarde

- Ra d a , 319 F.3d at 1291. Joint and several liability for proceeds of a conspiracy in which Delgado was a lower

- level participant plainly contradicts Honeycutt v. United States , 581 U.S. 443 (2017) , and our subsequent decision in United States v. Elbeblawy , 899 F.3d 925, 933 (11th Cir. 2018). Under traditional principles of joint and several liability, each co

- conspirator could be held liable for the entire amount of loss caused by the conspiracy. Cf. Restatement (Second) of Torts § USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 19 of 2120 Opinion of the Court 22

- 12315
875 ( Am. L. Inst. 1977) . But i n Honeycutt , the Court held that, under 21 U.S.C. § 853, a defendant cannot be held “jointly and severally liable for property that his co

- conspirator derived from the crime but that the defendant himself did not acquire.” 581 U.S. at 445. In so holding
, the Court reasoned tha t “joint and several liability would mandate forfeiture of untainted property that the defendant did not acquire as a result of the crime ,” which would run contrary to the statutory text and structure of § 853. Id. at 445, 451. Under binding Supreme Cour t precedent, then, a lower

- level conspirator’s forfeiture liability is limited to property he “ actually acquired as the result of the ” criminal conspiracy. Id. at 454.
In Elbeblawy , we extended Honeycutt to the forfeiture statute for healthcare fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(7) , holding that § 982 “does not permit joint and several liability.” 899 F.3d at 941

– 42. Like § 853, § 982 “reach[es] only property traceable to the commission of an offense.” Id. at 941 (citation omitted ). In a healthcare

- fraud
case, a forfeiture money judgment that exceeds the amount the defendant personally received runs contrary to both Honeycutt and Elbeblawy

. As the forfeiture judgment here violates this principle, Delgado has established error that is plain

. Delgado has also met his burden as to the other plain

- error factors. T he error affect ed Delgado’s “ substantial rights ” because it “‘ affected the outcome of the district court proceedings .’ ” Malone , 51 F.4th at 1319 (quoting Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135). As a result of the error, the district court impose d a forfeiture judgment in the amount of the actual loss traceable to Delgado’s USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 20 of 2122

- 12315 Opinion of the Court 21participation in the conspiracy, not the amount of proceeds he personally received. Perhaps, as a lower

- level conspirator, Delgado did

not rec eive the entire $2,200,779 . B ut even if he did, the district court must make that factual finding before imposing a forfeiture judgment against him in that amount. Finally, the district court’s error ‘ “ seriously affects the fairness [and] integrity

. . . of the judicial proceedings” ’

— namely, it undermin es consistent application of and adherence to binding precedent. See Cingari , 952 F.3d at 1305 ( quoting Beckles , 565 F.3d at 842 ). We are clearly bound by Supreme Court decisions and our p rior panel precedent, as are district courts within our Circuit. See United States v. Archer , 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008). Because the forfeiture judgment here does not comport with that precedent , we
vacate the forfeiture judgment and remand for additional fact

- finding as to the amount of proceeds that Delgado personally received from the conspiracy and for the entry of an amended forfeiture judgment. 6
CONCLUSION For the reasons we have explained, we AFFIR M IN PART and VACATE AND REMAND IN PART Petitioner’s judgment for proceedings consistent with this opinion

.

6 Delgado raises an additional argument related to substitute asset f orfeiture, but because we remand for fact

- finding as to the proceeds Delgado personally received, we need not reach this argument. USCA11 Case: 22-12315 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 21 of 21