United States v. Jackson

Background Duane Curtis Jackson appealed his thirteen-month revocation sentence followed by an additional twelve-month term of supervised release. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, questioning the reasonableness of the revocation sentence but finding no other meritorious grounds for appeal. The court’s reasoning The court determined that a Rogers error occurred under United States v. Rogers. Under this precedent, a sentencing court must include any non-mandatory condition of supervised release in its oral pronouncement in open court. The written judgment included four special conditions, but the district court did not impose any of these discretionary conditions at the revocation hearing. Because the defendant did not request a more limited remedy, the court vacated the entire sentence and remanded for full resentencing. Under Rogers, in order to sentence a defendant to a non-mandatory condition of supervised release, the sentencing court must include that condition in its oral pronouncement of a defendant’s sentence in open court. United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341, 345 (4th Cir. 2021) What it means going forward Defendants in the Fourth Circuit must ensure that all discretionary conditions of supervised release are explicitly stated during the oral pronouncement of the sentence to avoid automatic vacatur and remand.