By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 13, 2015//
U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Criminal
Sentencing – Supervised release; conditions
Unsupported conditions of supervised release must be vacated, even if the defendant does not appeal them.
“In Siegel, we vacated a number of conditions of supervised release that were ‘inappropriate, inadequately defined, or imposed without the sentencing judge’s having justified them by reference to the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).’ Id. at 717. In Thompson, we reiterated our concern regarding these vague conditions, as well as the manner in which they are imposed. See generally 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 604 (addressing four cases consolidated on appeal).”
“We cannot overlook the presence of plain error. United States v. Muriel, 418 F.3d 720, 723 n.1 (7th Cir. 2005) (‘A court of appeals may notice plain error even though the error was not brought to the court’s attention.’ (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b))). Relevant to the case at hand, the error need not be clear or obvious—or exist at all—at the time of sentencing. The error must, however, be ‘clear and uncontroverted at the time of appeal.’ United States v. Ross, 77 F.3d 1525, 1539 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (emphasis added)). It must also affect substantial rights and ‘seriously impugn the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ United States v. Cary, 775 F.3d 919, 923 (7th Cir. 2014). That is what we have here.” Affirmed in part, and Vacated in part.
14-1384 U.S. v. Sewell
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Springmann, J., Kanne, J.