X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Agustin Torres-Aguilar pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after previously having been deported. At the sentencing hearing, the district judge said Torres-Aguilar would be sentenced to 250 days, time served, and one year of supervised release. The judge did not mention any other conditions or terms in his oral pronouncement, but in his written order, he stated that Torres-Aguilar was not to possess a firearm, destructive device or any other dangerous weapon during his supervised release. Torres-Aguilar appeals, arguing the “dangerous weapon” prohibition should be stricken since it is a special condition that was not included in the judge’s oral pronouncement. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court reviews the district judge’s actions for an abuse of discretion. The court notes that there is a difference between oral and written pronouncements that create a conflict, versus those that just create ambiguity. The court further notes that an explicit reference to each and every standard condition of supervision need not be delineated, but that special conditions must be so delineated. While Torres-Aguilar argues that condition is a “special” condition because it is so characterized in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the government argues that a prohibition against possessing a weapon is a standard condition of supervision. The court finds that the label of “special” in Sentencing Guidelines �5D1.3(d) does not refer to unusual conditions, only that certain crimes should be subject to the conditions as a matter of course when certain factors are present, while others should not. The court follows the ruling laid down by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Thomas, 299 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2002), that “[i]f the district court orally imposes a sentence of supervised release without stating the conditions applicable to this period of supervision, the judgment’s inclusion of conditions that are mandatory, standard, or recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines does not create a conflict with the oral pronouncement.” Because the Sentencing Guidelines recommend that all defendants who have been convicted of a felony be prohibited from possession and dangerous weapon during supervised release, the court rules that there is no conflict between the district judge’s oral and written pronouncements. OPINION:Per curiam; King, C.J., Davis and Garza, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.