United States v. Sheeds ( 2022 )

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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