Source: http://openjurist.org/319/f3d/1313/united-states-v-ridgeway
Timestamp: 2016-10-28 05:09:50
Document Index: 567805656

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5861', '§ 922', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5']

319 F3d 1313 United States v. Ridgeway | OpenJurist
319 F. 3d 1313 - United States v. Ridgeway HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series319 F.3d
319 F3d 1313 United States v. Ridgeway 319 F.3d 1313
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Larry James RIDGEWAY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-11751.
In a two-count indictment, Ridgeway was charged in Count 1 with possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) and in Count 2 with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He pled guilty to Count 1 without the benefit of a written plea agreement, and the government later dismissed Count 2.2 The district court sentenced Ridgeway to 87 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
As an initial matter, although Condition 16 is not listed as a condition of supervised release in Ridgeway's written judgment, the court orally imposed it at the sentencing hearing. (R1-14; R2-8 through 11.) When the orally imposed sentence differs from the written order of judgment, the oral sentence controls. United States v. Jones, 289 F.3d 1260, 1264 n. 5 (11th Cir.), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 661, 154 L.Ed.2d 524, 2002 WL 1906967 (2002); United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 975, 977 (11th Cir.1990).
This Court reviews a district court's imposition of a supervised release term for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Bull, 214 F.3d 1275, 1277-78 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056, 121 S.Ct. 667, 148 L.Ed.2d 568 (2000). A district court may impose conditions of supervised release in accordance with four classes of conditions found in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3. The first class of supervised release conditions is the list of "mandatory" conditions in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(a). When sentencing a defendant to a term of supervised release, a district court must impose § 5D1.3(a)(1), § 5D1.3(a)(2) and, in an appropriate case, must impose §§ 5D1.3(a)(3)-(7).
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(b). This Court has held, however, that special conditions imposed pursuant to § 5D1.3(b) need not be related to each factor listed in § 5D1.3(b)(1); instead, each factor is an independent consideration to be weighed. See Bull, 214 F.3d at 1278.4
Condition 16, requiring of Ridgeway that he "refrain from conduct or activities which would give reasonable cause to believe [he has] violated any criminal law,"5 proscribes not just criminal activity but a range of behavior so broad as to be inherently vague.6 Since it is impossible to determine exactly what conduct is prohibited by Condition 16, no court could sufficiently evaluate it to determine if it satisfies the requirements of § 5D1.3(b)(1) and § 5D1.3(b)(2). As noted earlier, the Southern District of Alabama imposes Condition 16 as a part of every sentence of supervised release, apparently without complying with the requirement in Bull that each § 5D1.3(b)(1) factor is an independent factor to be weighed before imposing a condition of supervised release that can only be imposed under the authority of § 5D1.3(b). Certainly no findings of fact were made by the district court with regard to the § 5D1.3(b)(1) factors before it was imposed in this case, and the lack of clarity as to what conduct was proscribed would have prevented a proper consideration of § 5D1.3(b). In fact, though requested, the district court expressly refused to make specific findings as to Condition 16 other than it was a "reasonable requirement" that the district court was authorized to impose. We do not hold that specific findings must be made by the district court on each § 5D1.3(b) factor in every case. In a proper case, § 5D1.3(b) may be satisfied where the condition being imposed is clear and undisputed facts contained in the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSI") support the condition under a § 5D1.3(b) analysis. See Bull, 214 F.3d at 1278 (relying solely on information in the PSI to find no abuse of discretion in imposing the challenged required condition).
We simply hold that Condition 16 was not validly imposed because, given its breadth and vagueness, a court could not reasonably determine that it meets the "reasonably related" requirements of § 5D1.3(b)(1) or the "no greater deprivation" requirement of § 5D1.3(b)(2). Accordingly, we VACATE the portion of Ridgeway's sentence imposing Condition 16 as a condition of supervised release.
Since the Court determines that Condition 16 is so broad and vague that a court cannot justifiably make in any case the requisite findings under § 5D1.3(b), the Court refrains from discussing the constitutional issue on appeal. Generally, courts will not grasp a constitutional question for decision even though properly presented, if there is also present some other legitimate ground upon which the case can be decidedSee e.g., City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 294, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 1077, 71 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982); U.S. v. Odom, 252 F.3d 1289, 1293 (11th Cir.2001); Santamorena v. Ga. Military Coll., 147 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 1998). "If there is one doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that we ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality ... unless such adjudication is unavoidable." Spector Motor Serv., Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105, 65 S.Ct. 152, 154, 89 L.Ed. 101 (1944); see also Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 501, 105 S.Ct. 2794, 2800, 86 L.Ed.2d 394 (1985); Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S.Ct. 466, 483, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring); Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S.S. Co. v. Comm'rs of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39, 5 S.Ct. 352, 355, 28 L.Ed. 899 (1885). This is a "fundamental rule of judicial restraint" which has received the sanction of time and experience. Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 467 U.S. 138, 157, 104 S.Ct. 2267, 2279, 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984). Further, the Supreme Court has described this canon as "corollary" to the Article III case or controversy requirement. See Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 331 U.S. 549, 570, 67 S.Ct. 1409, 1420, 91 L.Ed. 1666 (1947).
InBull, the condition was not related to the nature and circumstances of the offense of conviction, but this Court determined "this is not fatal where the other considerations in section 5D1.3 so clearly apply." Bull, 214 F.3d at 1278.
Condition 16 is certainly broader than the conditions set out in § 5D1.3(a)(1), § 5D1.3(c)(8) and § 5D1.3(c)(9) which address the subject of being a law-abiding person. Those three conditions are Conditions 1, 9 and 10 of Probation Form 7A utilized by the Southern District of Alabama