Court Opinion

ID: 9401084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 00:00:39.488934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.797376
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20266         Document: 00516781183             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                      June 9, 2023
                                       No. 22-20266                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                         Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Theapolis Nelson,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:22-CR-98-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Theapolis Nelson appeals the district court’s written judgment
   imposing certain supervised-release conditions that the district court did not
   orally pronounce at sentencing. Because some of the written conditions are
   broader than those orally pronounced, we partially VACATE the sentence
   and REMAND for the district court to modify the judgment to conform
   with its oral pronouncement.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20266        Document: 00516781183             Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                        No. 22-20266

                                              I
           Theapolis Nelson pleaded guilty to a single-count indictment charging
   him with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
   §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). At sentencing, the district court1 sentenced
   Nelson to 80 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. The
   court instructed Nelson that while on supervised release he is “not to use
   drugs,” must get an education “of some kind for some good,” and must get
   vocational training. The court further ordered that Nelson contribute half of
   his prison income to his mother who cares for his child. But, after hearing
   Nelson’s objection, the district changed this condition to a suggestion,
   stating that such a contribution would be “a first step to a decent life.”
           The written judgment reiterated the length of incarceration and
   supervised release stated at sentencing. On top of the statutorily mandated
   supervised-release conditions, the district court’s written judgment imposed
   15 “standard conditions” for supervised release:
           1. You must report to the probation office in the federal judicial
           district where you are authorized to reside within 72 hours of
           your release from imprisonment, unless the probation officer
           instructs you to report to a different probation office or within
           a different time frame.
           2. After initially reporting to the probation office, you will
           receive instructions from the court or the probation officer
           about how and when you must report to the probation officer,
           and you must report to the probation officer as instructed.

           _____________________
           1
            The district court judge, Judge Hughes, assumed senior status in February and is
   no longer hearing cases. See Amended Division of Work Order, Gen. Order No. 2023-03
   (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2023).

                                                  2
Case: 22-20266     Document: 00516781183          Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                   No. 22-20266

         3. You must not knowingly leave the federal judicial district
         where you are authorized to reside without first getting
         permission from the court or the probation officer.
         4. You must answer truthfully the questions asked by your
         probation officer.
         5. You must live at a place approved by the probation officer. If
         you plan to change where you live or anything about your living
         arrangements (such as the people you live with), you must
         notify the probation officer at least 10 days before the change.
         If notifying the probation officer in advance is not possible due
         to unanticipated circumstances, you must notify the probation
         officer within 72 hours of becoming aware of a change or
         expected change.
         6. You must allow the probation officer to visit you at any time
         at your home or elsewhere, and you must permit the probation
         officer to take any items prohibited by the conditions of your
         supervision that he or she observes in plain view.
         7. You must work full time (at least 30 hours per week) at a
         lawful type of employment, unless the probation officer
         excuses you from doing so. If you do not have full-time
         employment you must try to find full-time employment, unless
         the probation officer excuses you from doing so. If you plan to
         change where you work or anything about your work (such as
         your position or your job responsibilities), you must notify the
         probation officer at least 10 days before the change. If notifying
         the probation officer at least 10 days in advance is not possible
         due to unanticipated circumstances, you must notify the
         probation officer within 72 hours of becoming aware of a
         change or expected change.
         8. You must not communicate or interact with someone you
         know is engaged in criminal activity. If you know someone has
         been convicted of a felony, you must not knowingly
         communicate or interact with that person without first getting
         the permission of the probation officer.

                                             3
Case: 22-20266    Document: 00516781183          Page: 4   Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                  No. 22-20266

         9. If you are arrested or questioned by a law enforcement
         officer, you must notify the probation officer within 72 hours.
         10. You must not own, possess, or have access to a firearm,
         ammunition, destructive device, or dangerous weapon (i.e.,
         anything that was designed, or was modified for, the specific
         purpose of causing bodily injury or death to another person
         such as nunchakus or tasers).
         11. You must not act or make any agreement with a law
         enforcement agency to act as a confidential human source or
         informant without first getting the permission of the court.
         12. If the probation officer determines that you pose a risk to
         another person (including an organization), the probation
         officer may require you to notify the person about the risk and
         you must comply with that instruction. The probation officer
         may contact the person and confirm that you have notified the
         person about the risk.
         13. You must follow the instructions of the probation officer
         related to the conditions of supervision.
         14. If restitution is ordered, the defendant must make
         restitution as ordered by the Judge and in accordance with the
         applicable provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2248, 2259, 2264, 2327,
         3663A and/or 3664. The defendant must also pay the
         assessment imposed in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3013.
         15. The defendant must notify the U.S. Probation Office of any
         material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances
         that might affect the defendant’s ability to pay restitution,
         fines, or special assessments.
   The judgment also imposed 8 “special conditions” for supervised release:
         [1.] You must participate in an outpatient substance-abuse
         treatment program and follow the rules and regulations of that
         program. The probation officer will supervise your
         participation in the program, including the provider, location,

                                           4
Case: 22-20266     Document: 00516781183          Page: 5   Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                   No. 22-20266

         modality, duration, and intensity. You must pay the costs of the
         program, if financially able.
         [2.] You may not possess any controlled substances without a
         valid prescription. If you do have a valid prescription, you must
         follow the instructions on the prescription.
         [3.] You must submit to substance-abuse testing to determine
         if you have used a prohibited substance, and you must pay the
         costs of the testing if financially able. You may not attempt to
         obstruct or tamper with the testing methods.
         [4.] You may not knowingly purchase, possess, distribute,
         administer, or otherwise use any psychoactive substances,
         including synthetic marijuana or bath salts, that impair a
         person’s physical or mental functioning, whether or not
         intended for human consumption, except as with the prior
         approval of the probation officer.
         [5.] You must participate in an educational services program
         and follow the rules and regulations of that program. Such
         programs may include high school equivalency preparation and
         other classes designed to improve your proficiency in skills
         such as reading, writing, mathematics, or computer use. You
         must pay the costs of the program.
         [6.] You are required to participate in a vocational training
         program.
         [7.] You must not communicate, or otherwise interact, with
         any known gang members, including the Gangster Disciples,
         without first obtaining the permission of the probation officer.
         [8.] You must meet any legal obligation to support or make
         payments toward the support of any dependent children.
         Nelson timely appealed. He challenges solely the district court’s
   imposition of standard conditions 2–15 and special conditions 1, 3, 4, 7, and
   8.

                                            5
Case: 22-20266        Document: 00516781183        Page: 6    Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                    No. 22-20266

                                         II
          Due process requires that the district court orally announce any
   conditions for supervised release that are not mandatory under 18 U.S.C.
   § 3583(d). See United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 557, 563 (5th Cir. 2020)
   (en banc). “Accordingly, where the oral pronouncement and written
   judgment conflict, the oral pronouncement controls.” United States v.
   Tanner, 984 F.3d 454, 456 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). The two conflict
   if the written judgment “broadens the restrictions” of or “imposes more
   burdensome conditions” than the oral pronouncement. United States v.
   Prado, 53 F.4th 316, 318 (5th Cir. 2022) (citations and internal quotation
   marks omitted). “In the event of a conflict, the written judgment must be
   amended to conform with the oral pronouncement.” Id. (citation omitted).
          When, as here, a defendant objects to a condition of supervised release
   “for the first time on appeal, we usually review only for plain error.” Diggles,
   957 F.3d at 559 (citation omitted). But if the defendant had no chance to
   object because the condition was not pronounced at sentencing, then our
   review is for abuse of discretion. United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378, 381
   (5th Cir. 2006).
                                          A
          Nelson first challenges the district court’s inclusion of standard
   conditions 2–15 in the written judgment. He argues that these conditions
   were never pronounced at sentencing and thus the district court erred in
   imposing them. The Government agrees with Nelson except as to standard
   condition 10.
          Standard conditions 2–15 are standard supervised-release conditions
   adopted by the Southern District of Texas in its General Order No. 2017-01
   (S.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2017). Probation recommended that Nelson comply with
   these conditions in the PSR. Still, the court did not pronounce any of these

                                              6
Case: 22-20266       Document: 00516781183             Page: 7      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                        No. 22-20266

   conditions at sentencing. Nor did it reference or orally adopt the district’s
   standard conditions or the PSR at sentencing. See Diggles, 957 F.3d at 560–61
   & n.5; compare United States v. Martinez, 15 F.4th 1179, 1180–81 (5th Cir.
   2021). Nevertheless, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
   imposing these conditions if they are reconcilable with the district court’s
   oral pronouncement.
           Conditions 2–9 and 11–15 are irreconcilable. These conditions are
   separate and in addition to the conditions given at sentencing. They are new
   and thus more burdensome restrictions. So the district court abused its
   discretion in imposing them. Accordingly, the district court must strike them
   from the judgment.
           By contrast, standard condition 10 (dangerous weapon ban) is mostly
   consistent with the district court’s oral pronouncement that Nelson must not
   commit any other crimes. As a felon, Nelson is prohibited under federal law
   from possessing firearms, ammunition, and destructive devices. See 18
   U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) (prohibiting a felon from possessing any firearm or
   ammunition), 921(a)(3) (defining the term firearm to include any destructive
   device). However, the district court must modify this condition “to the
   extent this condition broadens the statutory restriction by prohibiting the
   possession of other dangerous weapons.” United States v. Jackson, No. 20-
   50922, 2022 WL 738668, at *3 (5th Cir. Mar. 11, 2022) (per curiam); see also
   United States v. Garcia-Marcelo, No. 21-50700, 2022 WL 3684613, at *4 (5th
   Cir. Aug. 25, 2022) (per curiam).2

           _____________________
           2
             Unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996, are not binding
   precedent but may be considered persuasive authority. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4; Ballard v.
   Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006).

                                                  7
Case: 22-20266     Document: 00516781183          Page: 8    Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                   No. 22-20266

                                         B
          The district court likewise did not pronounce any of the special
   conditions at sentencing. Nelson only challenges conditions 1 (drug
   treatment), 3 (drug testing), 4 (psychoactive substances), 7 (gang
   communication), and 8 (child support).
          The Government agrees that conditions 1, 3, and 7 conflict with the
   oral sentence and should be stricken. We agree with the parties. Probation
   recommended special conditions 1, 3, and 7 in the PSR. Again, the district
   court did not orally adopt the PSR or otherwise orally pronounce these
   conditions at sentencing. As these conditions add restrictions on top of the
   pronounced conditions, they conflict with the oral sentence and must be
   excised.
          The same is true of special condition 8 which requires Nelson to meet
   any legal obligations for child support. The Government argues that this
   requirement is consistent with, and narrower than, the district court’s oral
   instruction that Nelson contribute half of his prison income to his mother to
   care for his child. But while the district court discussed Nelson paying child
   support, it ultimately only suggested that Nelson use his prison income to
   support his child—it did not order him to do so. Thus, this condition must be
   stricken from the judgment to match the oral sentence.
          Special condition 4, however, is consistent with the district court’s
   broad instruction that Nelson is “not to use drugs.” If anything, special
   condition 4 clarifies the broad oral condition by specifying what it meant by
   “use” (purchase, possess, distribute, administer, or otherwise use) and
   which drugs (psychoactive substances). Cf. United States v. Tang, 718 F.3d
   476, 487 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (There is no conflict if “the written
   judgment simply clarifies an ambiguity in the oral pronouncement.”). We
   thus agree with the Government that there is no conflict between this written

                                             8
Case: 22-20266          Document: 00516781183                Page: 9   Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                            No. 22-20266

   condition and the oral pronouncement. Nelson does not otherwise argue how
   this provision conflicts with the oral judgment.3
                                                   III
          We VACATE IN PART Nelson’s sentence and REMAND for the
   district court to amend its written judgment in accordance with this opinion.

          _____________________
          3
              Nelson did not file a reply brief.

                                                         9