United States v. Sheeds ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-50758     Document: 00516359890         Page: 1     Date Filed: 06/16/2022
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 21-50758                           June 16, 2022
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Michael Dewayne Sheeds,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:19-CR-448-1
    Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Michael Dewayne Sheeds appeals the sentence imposed following his
    guilty plea convictions for production of child pornography and possession of
    child pornography. Specifically, he contends that the district court violated
    his right to be present at sentencing by imposing 17 discretionary conditions
    *
    Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
    circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
    Case: 21-50758      Document: 00516359890           Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/16/2022
    No. 21-50758
    of supervised release in the written judgment without orally pronouncing
    them during his sentencing hearing. The challenged conditions appear in the
    judgment as “standard” conditions one through seventeen. Because the
    district court did not reference the conditions or orally adopt a document
    listing the conditions during the sentencing hearing, Sheeds did not have an
    opportunity to object, and we review for abuse of discretion. See United
    States v. Diggles, 
    957 F.3d 551
    , 559-60 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc); United States
    v. Grogan, 
    977 F.3d 348
    , 352 (5th Cir. 2020).
    At sentencing, the district court did not state the conditions, allude to
    them by shorthand reference, or orally adopt the standing order containing a
    listing of the conditions. Cf. United States v. Martinez, 
    15 F.4th 1179
    , 1180-81
    (5th Cir. 2021); Grogan, 977 F.3d at 351-54. Accordingly, the imposition of
    the 17 “standard” conditions in the written judgment violated Sheeds’s right
    to be present at sentencing. See Diggles, 957 F.3d at 559-63 & n.5. We thus
    VACATE the judgment in part and REMAND the case for the limited
    purpose of amending the written judgment to conform to the oral
    pronouncement of sentence. See Diggles, 957 F.3d at 559-63; United States v.
    Mireles, 
    471 F.3d 551
    , 558 (5th Cir. 2006).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-50758

Filed Date: 6/16/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/17/2022