Opinion ID: 2994713
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: 3d 770, 773 (5th Cir. 1997) (plain error

Text: standard not met where the only court to address contested issue ruled contrary to defendant’s position); see also United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 (1982) (plain errors are those so conspicuous that the trial judge and prosecutor were derelict in countenancing [them], even absent the defendant’s timely assistance in detecting [them]). On this basis, we find that the district court did not commit plain error by applying sec. 2A3.1(b)(2)(B) in the manner in which it did. 4. Supervised Release Angle finally contends that the district court erred by imposing a sex offender registration requirement as a special condition of supervised release. He claims that the district court should have provided notice of its intent to impose the condition because it was analogous to an upward departure. The government acknowledges that Angle did not receive notice of the special condition prior to sentencing. Nevertheless, the government contends that the imposition of the special condition for sex offender registration is directly related to the offense charged and therefore it was within the district court’s discretion to impose the condition. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s imposition of a special condition of supervised release. United States v. Schave, 186 F.3d 839, 841 (7th Cir. 1999). A district court may impose a special condition of supervised release that it deems appropriate so long as the condition: (1) is reasonably related to specified sentencing factors, namely the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) is reasonably related to the need to afford adequate deterrence, to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to achieve these goals; and (4) is consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Id. (citations omitted). Here, Angle contests the district court’s imposition of a sex offender registration requirement (which is not listed among the mandatory conditions set forth in 18 U.S.C. sec. 3563(a) or the discretionary conditions of probation set forth in 18 U.S.C. sec. 3563(b)). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1) states in part: At the sentencing hearing, the court must afford counsel for the defendant and for the Government an opportunity to comment on the probation officer’s determinations and on other matters relating to the appropriate sentence. The Supreme Court held in Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 138 (1991), that before a district court can depart upward on a ground not identified as a ground for upward departure either in the presentence report or in a prehearing submission by the Government, Rule 32 requires that the district court give parties reasonable notice that it is contemplating such a ruling. The Court observed that: ’Th[e] right to be heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed’ that a decision is contemplated. Id. at 501 (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950)). In this regard, an interpretation of Rule 32 not requiring notice would be inconsistent with Rule 32’s purpose of promoting focused, adversarial resolution of the legal and factual issues relevant to fixing Guidelines sentences. Burns, 501 U.S. at 137. Applying Rule 32 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Burns, the Fifth Circuit has required that reasonable presentence notice be given to criminal defendants--either by the presentence report, a prehearing submission, or the district court itself--when the court is considering imposing a sex offender registration as a special condition of supervised release. See United States v. Coenen, 135 F.3d 938 (5th Cir. 1998). The Fifth Circuit in Coenen, supra, concluded that since the sex offender registration requirement was analogous to an upward departure (as it was not expressly contemplated by the guidelines), Rule 32 and Burns required presentencing notice./27 We agree with the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Coenen and find its reasoning apt to this case. Because we believe Angle was entitled to presentencing notice in this case, the district court should reconsider the issue on remand after providing the parties with an opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of the sex offender registration requirement as a special condition of supervised release.