Background
Timothy Bland pleaded guilty to methamphetamine trafficking in violation of Section twenty-one thousand four hundred one and Section twenty-one thousand four hundred six of Title twenty-one of the United States Code. The district court sentenced him to two hundred thirty-five months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. At sentencing, the court orally modified a special condition regarding residence in a residential reentry center to apply only if Bland lacked sufficient housing upon release. However, the written judgment omitted this limitation and required placement in a reentry center for up to one hundred twenty days unconditionally.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied abuse of discretion review because the defendant had no opportunity to object to the condition in the written judgment. The court reiterated that when a written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls. The discrepancy here was a conflict because the written judgment imposed a more burdensome requirement by eliminating the defendant’s ability to avoid reentry-center placement by securing appropriate housing. The court found that the oral pronouncement limited the condition to times when the defendant did not have an appropriate residence, whereas the written judgment required placement regardless of housing status.
What it means going forward
The special condition requiring residence in a reentry center is vacated as written. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to correct the written judgment to match the oral pronouncement, which limits the reentry-center requirement to situations where the defendant lacks suitable housing upon release.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download