Background
Andrew Fleshman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate civil rights in violation of Section eighteen of the United States Code, Section two hundred forty-one. The district court sentenced him to one hundred months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. On appeal, Fleshman argued that the district court failed to pronounce or properly incorporate the standard and discretionary conditions of his supervised release, claiming a violation of United States v. Rogers.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that the core of Rogers jurisprudence is a defendant’s right to be present when sentenced. A discretionary condition constitutes a Rogers error only when a material discrepancy appears between the written judgment and the oral pronouncement. The court noted that a district court may satisfy its obligation through incorporation and then detailing those conditions in the written judgment. Here, the district court adopted the presentence report before expressly incorporating the conditions recommended by the United States Probation Officer. The terms of the standard conditions in the presentence report matched those in the written judgment. Furthermore, defense counsel had previously responded that they would be satisfied with incorporating the conditions by reference. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not commit a reversible Rogers error.
At the core of Rogers jurisprudence is a defendant’s right to be present when sentenced.
United States v. Aborisade, 63 F. 4th 856, 866 (4th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision clarifies that incorporating a presentence report into a written judgment, when the conditions match and counsel agrees, satisfies the oral pronouncement requirement for supervised release conditions.