Case Explained: United States of America Plaintiff— v. William Scott Kendall Defendant—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-02

The Fifth Circuit vacated in part and dismissed in part the judgment of sentence from the district court’s first supervised release revocation. The court held that while the appeal was generally moot because a second, superseding revocation judgment had been entered, it retained jurisdiction under the “collateral consequences” exception to mootness specifically regarding conditions that formed the basis for the subsequent revocation. The court reasoned that a favorable ruling on the validity of those specific conditions could serve as grounds for the defendant to seek modification or termination of his current supervised release sentence via 28 U.S.C. § 2255, thereby redressing an ongoing injury traceable to the first judgment. Regarding the merits, the court applied the abuse of discretion standard of review because the defendant lacked a meaningful opportunity to object to the conditions at the sentencing hearing. The court relied on the constitutional due process right established in *United States v. Diggles*, which requires that a district court provide a defendant with notice of the sentence and an opportunity to object through oral pronouncement, noting that where a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by adopting special conditions from a “Judge’s Sentencing Options Worksheet” appendix without confirming that the defendant or counsel had reviewed it or had an opportunity to object. Specifically, the home detention condition was not orally pronounced, nor was it a natural inference from the general “location monitoring” pronouncement. Consequently, the court ordered the written judgment amended to remove the unpronounced home detention special condition and Standard Condition 13 (requiring compliance with probation officer instructions), while dismissing challenges to all other conditions as moot.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.