United States v. Diggles, No. 18-40521 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Fifth Circuit heard this case en banc to resolve inconsistency in its caselaw on one common issue: How does the requirement that a court pronounce its sentence in the presence of the defendant apply to supervision conditions?
The court stated that what matters is whether a condition is required or discretionary under the supervised release statute, 18 U.S.C. 3583(d). If a condition is required, making an objection futile, the court need not pronounce it. If a condition is discretionary, the court must pronounce it to allow for an objection. In this case, because the district court adopted the conditions the PSR proposed, it pronounced the three conditions it was required to: the financial disclosure requirement and the gambling and credit restrictions.
The court clarified the law governing supervised release conditions in three respects: 1. A sentencing court must pronounce conditions that are discretionary under 18 U.S.C. 3583(d); 2. When a defendant fails to raise a pronouncement objection in the district court, review is for plain error if the defendant had notice of the conditions and an opportunity to object; 3. A sentencing court pronounces supervision conditions when it orally adopts a document recommending those conditions.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 26, 2019.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.