Background
William Scott Kendall was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon and sentenced to imprisonment followed by supervised release. After a first revocation of his supervised release, Kendall appealed the conditions imposed. While his appeal was pending, the district court revoked his release a second time based on violations of the conditions from the first revocation, including a home detention requirement. Kendall argued that the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement at sentencing.
The court’s reasoning
The court first addressed mootness, concluding that the appeal was not entirely moot because the challenged conditions from the first revocation were the basis for the second revocation, creating a collateral consequence. The court held that a favorable decision could redress this injury by allowing Kendall to seek modification of his current sentence. On the merits, the court applied the abuse of discretion standard because Kendall had no opportunity to object to the conditions before the district court. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a home detention condition without ensuring Kendall and his counsel had reviewed the document containing the condition or had an opportunity to object.
The district court abused its discretion by adopting a list of conditions without notice or opportunity to object.
United States v. Kendall, No. 24-40727, 2026 WL 1983938 (5th Cir. July 2, 2026)
What it means going forward
Defendants challenging supervised release conditions must ensure those conditions were orally pronounced or properly disclosed to allow for objection. If a challenged condition leads to a subsequent revocation, the appeal regarding that condition remains live despite the intervening revocation.