Nestor Villafana-Mondragon pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after a prior felony conviction. During sentencing, the district court imposed two specific supervised-release conditions based on recommendations in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR): one requiring immediate reporting to ICE and probation upon return, and another requiring him to seek work authorization from ICE. Villafana-Mondragon appealed, arguing that the district court failed to adequately pronounce these conditions as required by United States v. Diggles. Specifically, he contended that the court did not verify he had reviewed the PSR with his counsel before adopting the conditions, thereby denying him adequate notice and an opportunity to object.
The panel, writing for the court, analyzed the appeal under the plain error standard because Villafana-Mondragon had the opportunity to object but failed to do so. The court first addressed whether the district court properly pronounced the conditions. Citing United States v. Diggles, the court noted that oral in-court adoption of a written list of proposed conditions, such as those in a PSR, provides the necessary notice and is the preferred method of pronouncement. The district court had informed Villafana-Mondragon that he must comply with conditions noted in the PSR appendix, which matched the written judgment. Next, the court addressed the argument that the judge failed to verify the defendant had reviewed the PSR with counsel. While Diggles references Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A), the court clarified that this rule does not create an absolute requirement for the judge to specifically ask the defendant if they have read the report. Instead, the court looks to the record to determine if the defendant had an opportunity to review the PSR with counsel. Here, the record showed Villafana-Mondragon had access to the PSR for over a month, filed no objections, and his counsel explicitly confirmed to the judge that she had gone over the lack of objections with him. The court found this sufficient to satisfy the verification requirement, noting that the defendant never claimed he lacked the opportunity to review the document.
This decision reinforces that district courts may satisfy Diggles notice requirements by orally adopting PSR conditions without a specific on-the-record inquiry to the defendant, as long as the record demonstrates the defendant had ample opportunity to review the report with counsel. It limits the scope of procedural challenges to supervised-release conditions where the defendant had prior access to the PSR and counsel confirmed discussion of the report. The case is remanded with instructions to affirm the sentence.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download