Background
Julius Augillard was convicted of two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon. He challenged his sentence on four grounds, including the classification of his prior state conviction as a controlled substance offense and the application of a four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony. He also argued that the written judgment improperly added a supervised release condition not mentioned during the oral pronouncement.
The court’s reasoning
The court affirmed the district court’s application of the realistic probability test, rejecting Augillard’s argument that United States v. Taylor abrogated the requirement to show a realistic probability of prosecution for conduct outside the generic definition. The court found sufficient evidence that Augillard possessed a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense based on the volume and packaging of the drugs. However, the court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to orally pronounce a discretionary supervised release condition, requiring the written judgment to be amended to conform to the oral pronouncement.
What it means going forward
Defendants challenging prior state drug convictions must still provide specific case law showing a realistic probability of prosecution for conduct outside the federal definition. Courts must ensure all discretionary supervised release conditions are explicitly stated during the oral pronouncement to avoid remand.