01-3376 U.S. v. Sines

Listen to this article

“Sines argues that the requirement to take periodic polygraph examinations as part of a sex offender treatment program was not part of his original sentence at all. He bases this argument on the fact that, according to the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the court required Sines to participate in a ‘sex offender treatment program, including periodic progress, as directed by the probation office.’ Sines argues that this language prevails over the written judgment order which requires ‘a program for sex offenders including periodic polygraph examinations, as directed by the probation officer.’ Because this court takes care to enforce waivers only to the limited extent of the agreement (Behrman, 235 F.3d at 1052), we must evaluate carefully whether the requirement to submit to periodic polygraph examinations was, in fact, part of the sentence imposed, and thus part of the sentence that Sines agreed not to challenge.

“After reviewing the record, we find that the requirement to take periodic polygraph examinations was, in fact, part of the sentence imposed. Although it is likely that the discrepancy between the court’s oral pronouncement requiring ‘periodic progress’ and the written judgment requiring ‘periodic polygraphs’ was merely a transcription error, we need not rely on this explanation. Even if the discrepancy was not due to a transcription error, periodic polygraphs are merely a means of evaluating progress and thus the written judgment is simply a more specific rendering of the pronouncement at the hearing.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Tinder, J., Rovner, J.