United States v. Wooten ( 2021 )

Case: 20-50007 Document: 00515710990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 19, 2021
No. 20-50007
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ronald Gene Wooten,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:15-CR-34-1
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
After Ronald Gene Wooten pleaded guilty to assaulting a federal
officer, he was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment and three years of
supervised release. While he was on the period of supervised release, a
petition alleged that Wooten had violated the conditions of his release. He
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-50007 Document: 00515710990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2021
No. 20-50007
pleaded true to the allegations, and he was sentenced within the advisory
range to 12 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. On
appeal, he challenges only one of the conditions of supervised release
involving a “search condition.” We AFFIRM.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court ordered that Wooten’s
period of supervised release would be “under the same conditions of release
previously imposed and to include these additional conditions: The
defendant shall submit to the search condition of supervision within the
Western District of Texas.” Wooten’s counsel did not object and, at the end
of the hearing, stated: “I’ve asked Mr. Wooten if he had any other questions
of the Court, and he said he does not.”
Wooten now contends that the district court’s order did not give
sufficient notice and opportunity to object to this condition. 1 In a recent en
banc decision of this court, we clarified how this process works, balancing the
need to give defendants notice of their conditions, while avoiding
unnecessary “robotic” speeches of well-known conditions. United States v.
Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 562 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc), cert. denied, 2020 WL
6551832 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2020) (No. 20-5836). We made clear that we
“continue to approve” adoption of a court-wide standard condition and that
the linguistics of how conditions are described is not dispositive. Id. at 557,
561. It is undisputed that the search condition, as more fully laid out in the
written sentencing order, is set out in a “special conditions” section of the
“Standing Orders of the Western District of Texas.” “A standing order
1
Wooten suggests confusion over the standard of review here. Where no
objection is made at the sentencing hearing, review is generally for plain error under Puckett
v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). As Wooten’s brief notes, however, if no
opportunity to object was allowed, then review is for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Mudd, 685 F.3d 473, 480 (5th Cir. 2012). We conclude that Wooten had the opportunity
to object, but we note that there was no error under either standard of review.
2
Case: 20-50007 Document: 00515710990 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2021
No. 20-50007
provides advance notice of possible conditions just as a PSR does.” Id. at
561. We conclude that the district court’s reference to a search condition,
contained in a well-known Western District of Texas order, was sufficient
given that the order provides “advance notice of possible conditions.” Id.Therefore, the condition was orally pronounced, and Wooten could have, but
did not, object. He articulates no actual problem with imposition of this
condition, only whether it was sufficiently orally stated. We conclude that it
was. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
3