Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KRISTI HEATHER KING

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-29 The fourth-circuit affirmed King’s conviction and sentence, holding that a discrepancy between the district court’s oral pronouncement of a supervised release condition and the written judgment was immaterial and did not constitute reversible error under United States v. Rogers. The court applied the standard that while all discretionary conditions must be orally pronounced to protect a defendant’s right to be present at sentencing, a material discrepancy only occurs if the written judgment imposes a new obligation rather than clarifying an ambiguity in the oral pronouncement. Because the written judgment merely clarified who would supervise King’s mental health treatment—an obligation reasonably expected to flow from the oral order—the court found no violation. The judgment is affirmed and oral argument is dispensed with. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.