17‐2841‐cr  

United States v. Washington

1 In the 

2 United States Court of Appeals 

3 for the Second Circuit 

4    

5 

6 

7 AUGUST TERM 2017

8 

9 No. 17‐2841‐cr

10 

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12 Appellee,

13 

14 v.

15 

16 BRIAN WASHINGTON, a/k/a BRIAN E. WARD, a/k/a BRIAN K. WARD,

17 a/k/a BRIAN E. WASHINGTON, a/k/a BRIAN EUGENE WASHINGTON, a/k/a

18 BRIAN WARD, a/k/a EUGENE BRIAN WARD,

19 Defendant‐Appellant.

20    

21 

22 On Appeal from the United States District Court

23 for the Southern District of New York

24    

25 

26 ARGUED: AUGUST 15, 2018

27 DECIDED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2018

28    

29 
2

1 Before: CABRANES and POOLER, Circuit Judges, and OETKEN, District

Judge.

* 2 

3    

4 Defendant‐Appellant Brian Washington (“Washington”)

5 appeals the sentence imposed for his conviction on a charge of failure

6 to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250. On appeal,

7 Washington argues that the United States District Court for the

8 Southern District of New York (George B. Daniels, Judge) unlawfully

9 modified his sentence by including in the written judgment a duty to

10 submit to polygraph testing that was not mentioned during

11 pronouncement of sentence. We hold that inclusion of a duty to submit

12 to polygraph testing is, in the circumstances presented here, an

13 impermissible modification of the spoken sentence. We REMAND the

14 cause to the District Court for entry of an amended judgment from

15 which the reference to polygraph testing has been deleted.

16    

17          JACOB WARREN, Assistant United States

18 Attorney (Anna M. Skotko, Assistant United

19 States Attorney, on the brief), for Geoffrey S.

20 Berman, United States Attorney for the

 * Judge J. Paul Oetken, of the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York, sitting by designation.
3

1 Southern District of New York, New York,

2 NY, for Appellee.

3 

4 ALLEGRA GLASHAUSSER, Appeals Bureau,

5 Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New

6 York, NY, for Defendant‐Appellant.

7    

8 JOSE A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:

9 Defendant‐Appellant Brian Washington (“Washington”)

10 appeals the sentence imposed for his conviction on a charge of failure

11 to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250. On appeal,

12 Washington argues that the United States District Court for the

13 Southern District of New York (George B. Daniels, Judge) unlawfully

14 modified his sentence by including in the written judgment a duty to

15 submit to polygraph testing that was not mentioned during

16 pronouncement of sentence. We hold that inclusion of a duty to submit

17 to polygraph testing is, in the circumstances presented here, an

18 impermissible modification of the spoken sentence. We REMAND the

19 cause to the District Court for entry of a modified written judgment

20 from which the reference to polygraph testing has been deleted.

21 I.

22 This appeal arises from a discrepancy between the terms of

23 sentence that the District Court pronounced in Washington’s presence
4

1 at the sentencing hearing and the terms of sentence that the District

2 Court entered in its written judgment.

3 Washington’s sentence includes a five‐year term of supervised

4 release. In the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) prepared

5 before sentencing and reviewed by all parties, including the

6 defendant, the United States Probation Office recommended that the

7 District Court impose the usual mandatory and standard conditions

8 and several special conditions for the term of supervised release. One

9 proposed special condition required Washington to participate in a

10 sex‐offender‐treatment program and to comply with all the rules of the

11 program, “including submission to polygraph testing.” PSR at 24,

12 United States v. Washington, No. 1:16‐cr‐00628‐GBD (S.D.N.Y. July 27,

13 2017), ECF No. 21. The entire proposed special condition ran as

14 follows:

15 You must undergo a sex‐offense‐specific evaluation and

16 participate in an outpatient sex offender treatment and/or

17 outpatient mental health treatment program approved by

18 the U.S. Probation Office. You must abide by all rules,

19 requirements, and conditions of the sex offender

20 treatment program(s), including submission to polygraph

21 testing. You must waive your right of confidentiality in

22 any records for mental health assessment and treatment

23 imposed as a consequence of this judgment to allow the

24 probation officer to review your course of treatment and

25 progress with the treatment provider. You must

26 contribute to the cost of services rendered based on your
5

1 ability to pay and the availability of third‐party

2 payments. The Court authorizes the release of available

3 psychological and psychiatric evaluations and reports,

4 including the presentence investigation report, to the sex

5 offender treatment provider and/or mental health

6 treatment provider.

7 Id. (emphasis added).

8 The District Court imposed this special condition at

9 Washington’s sentencing hearing, together with all the other

10 mandatory, standard, and special conditions of supervised release that

11 the PSR had recommended. But the District Court stated the sex‐

12 offender‐treatment special condition more briefly than the PSR had.

13 Omitted, among other things, was any explicit reference to polygraph

14 testing. The District Court instead stated the condition in these terms:

15 The defendant also must undergo a sex‐offense‐specific

16 evaluation and participate in an outpatient sex offender

17 treatment and/or outpatient mental health treatment

18 program approved by the United States Probation Office.

19 Transcript at 23, Washington (Oct. 16, 2017), ECF No. 27.

20 After pronouncement of sentence, the District Courtrestated the

21 sex‐offender‐treatment special condition in a written judgment. The

22 special condition as restated in the judgment runs longer than the

23 version of the condition at the hearing. It is, however, identical in all

24 material respects to the version of the condition proposed in the PSR.
6

1 In particular, it includes the PSR’s language—omitted from the spoken

2 sentence—imposing a duty of “submission to polygraph testing.” The

3 entire written special condition reads:

4 Defendant shall undergo a sex‐offense‐specific evaluation

5 and participate in an outpatient sex offender treatment

6 and/or outpatient mental health treatment program

7 approved by the United States Probation Office.

8 Defendant shall abide by all rules, requirements, and

9 conditions of the sex offender treatment program(s),

10 including submission to polygraph testing. Defendant shall

11 waive his right of confidentiality in any records for

12 mental health assessment and treatment imposed as a

13 consequence of this judgment to allow the probation

14 officer to review your course of treatment and progress

15 with the treatment provider. Defendant shall contribute

16 to the cost of services rendered based on his ability to pay

17 and the availability of third‐party payments. The Court

18 authorizes the release of available psychological and

19 psychiatric evaluations and reports, including the

20 presentence investigation report, to the sex offender

21 treatment provider and/or mental health treatment

22 provider.

23 Judgment at 5 (emphasis added), Washington (Sept. 8, 2017), ECF No.

24 25.
7

1 Counsel for the defense had reviewed the PSR—which

2 contained the language imposing the polygraph requirement—with

3 Washington before sentencing, but Washington did not object at

4 sentencing to the PSR’s recommendations of special conditions.

5 Washington now appeals seeking deletion of the duty to submit

6 to polygraph testing from his written sentence.

7 

8 II.

9 A.

10 We review de novo the asserted discrepancy between the

11 spoken and written terms of Washington’s sentence. It is a question of

12 law whether the spoken and written terms of a defendant’s sentence

13 differ impermissibly. United States v. Jacques, 321 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir.

14 2003). In principle, we review an issue of law for plain error when the

15 defendant has failed to raise the issue in the district court. See United

16 States v. Sofsky, 287 F.3d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 2002) (relaxing the “rigorous

17 standards of plain errorreview” to correct an unobjected‐to sentencing

18 error of which the defendant did not have advance notice). But when

19 the point of law on appeal is a term of the defendant’s sentence and

20 the defendant lacked prior notice in the district court that the term

21 would be imposed, we will review the issue de novo even if the

22 defendant failed to raise an objection in the district court. See id. at 125–

23 26. Washington’s objection satisfies these conditions. Although not

24 raised in the District Court, the objection concerns his sentence, and it

25 concerns a matter about which he lacked advance notice. Washington
8

1 knew in advance, from reviewing the PSR with his lawyer, that the

2 District Court might include a polygraph‐testing requirement in his

3 conditions of supervised release. But he could not have known before

4 issuance of the written judgment that the District Court would include

5 polygraph testing in the written version of his sentence after omitting

6 any mention of it from the spoken version.

7 B.

8 The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that a

9 defendant must be present at pronouncement of sentence. Fed. R.

10 Crim. P. 43(a)(3). Accordingly, after a sentence has been pronounced,

11 the written judgment may clarify the terms of the spoken sentence, see

12 United States v. Truscello, 168 F.3d 61, 63 (2d Cir. 1999), but if there is a

13 substantive discrepancy between the spoken and written versions of a

14 defendant’s sentence, the spoken version ordinarily controls, United

15 States v. Rosario, 386 F.3d 166, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2004). We have derogated

16 from this general rule and allowed a written modification of the

17 spoken sentence only in cases in which the modification added a

18 condition of supervised release classified as “mandatory,”  

19 “standard,” or “recommended” in United States Sentencing

20 Guidelines sections 5D1.3(a), (c), and (d) or added mere “basic

21 administrative requirements that are necessary to supervised release.”

22 Rosario, 386 F.3d at 169 (internal quotation marks omitted).

23 We conclude here that the written judgment’s additional

24 language requiring “submission to polygraph testing” is an

25 impermissible modification of the spoken sentence. Polygraph testing
9

1 can be onerous for a defendant, who may feel at risk of incriminating

2 him‐  or herself. It is also not a necessary or invariable part of sex‐

3 offender treatment. Many district judges require polygraph testing as

4 part of the sex‐offender‐treatment condition in at least some cases. See

5 generally Migdalia Baerga‐Buffler & James L. Johnson, Sex Offender

6 Management in the Federal Probation and Pretrial Services System, 70 Fed.

7 Prob. 13 (2006); Michael Palmiotto & Scott MacNichol, Supervision of

8 Sex Offenders: A Multi‐Faceted and Collaborative Approach, 74 Fed. Prob.

9 27 (2010). But we learned at oral argument that some district judges,

10 including some judges in the district courts of this Circuit, never allow

11 it.

12 III.

13 In summary, we hold that, in the circumstances presented here,

14 inclusion of a duty of “submission to polygraph testing” in

15 Washington’s written sentence constituted an impermissible

16 modification of the spoken sentence, from which those words were

17 omitted, because polygraph testing is burdensome to the defendant

18 and not a necessary or invariable component of sex‐offender

19 treatment.

20 The cause is REMANDED to the District Court for entry of an

21 amended judgment from which the words “including submission to

22 polygraph testing” have been deleted.