Background
Michael Windom pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under Section eighteen U.S.C. nine hundred twenty-two subsection G one. His plea agreement included an appellate waiver. The district court imposed a sixty-three month prison sentence and three years of supervised release. Windom appealed, arguing procedural error in the sentencing explanation and a discrepancy between his oral and written judgment.
The court’s reasoning
The court first determined that Windom’s appeal waiver was valid and voluntary based on the Rule eleven colloquy. Consequently, the court dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging the procedural reasonableness of the sentence as it fell within the scope of the waiver. Regarding the second argument, the court compared the oral sentence to the written judgment. Although there was a slight difference in the phrasing of the supervised release reporting condition, the court concluded under United States versus Aborisade that the inconsistency was not material and did not warrant resentencing.
We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
What it means going forward
Defendants who sign valid appeal waivers cannot challenge the procedural reasonableness of their sentences. Minor discrepancies between oral and written supervised release conditions that do not affect the substance of the sentence will not trigger a remand for resentencing.