USCA11 Case: 23-11840 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2025 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-11840 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONALD B. THOMAS, JR., a.k.a. Ronald Thomas, a.k.a. Gorilla,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida USCA11 Case: 23-11840 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2025 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11840 D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cr-00101-MMH-LLL-1 ____________________ Before JORDAN, LUCK, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Defendant-Appellant Ronald Thomas, Jr., appeals the dis- trict court’s imposition of the standard conditions of supervised re- lease adopted in the Middle District of Florida, which were publicly available on the court’s website. He argues that the district court deprived him of his Fifth Amendment right to due process by fail- ing to pronounce each of these standard conditions at his sentenc- ing hearing. After careful review, we affirm Thomas’ sentence.

I.

Thomas pled guilty to knowingly and intentionally distrib- uting fentanyl and methamphetamine, knowingly possessing fire- arms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and knowingly pos- sessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The district court sentenced Thomas to the mandatory minimum of twenty years’ imprison- ment and an eight-year term of supervised release.

At sentencing, the court explained that while on supervised release, Thomas “will be required to comply with the standard con- ditions of release adopted in the Middle District of Florida as well as certain special conditions.” The court then listed each of the spe- cial conditions. It did not discuss the standard conditions in any more detail. When asked whether he had “any objection to the sen- tence or the manner in which it was imposed,” Thomas did not USCA11 Case: 23-11840 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2025 Page: 3 of 5

23-11840 Opinion of the Court 3 object to the court’s imposition of standard or special conditions to his supervised release. His sole objection was that his sentence was unreasonable and violated the Eighth Amendment.

The district court’s amended written judgment listed the thirteen “standard conditions” for supervised release in full. Those thirteen conditions matched the standard conditions on the crimi- nal judgment form on the Middle District of Florida’s website. See U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Middle Dist. of Fla., Form AO 245B Judgment in a Criminal Case, https://perma.cc/5PHV-Q76Q. The thirteen con- ditions also match the standard conditions recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5B1.3(c). Thomas timely appealed.

II.

We review the imposition of non-mandatory conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Etienne, 102 F.4th 1139, 1144 (11th Cir. 2024). If a defendant failed to object to the condition, we are limited to reviewing for plain error. United States v. Carpenter, 803 F.3d 1224, 1237 (11th Cir. 2015).

Of course, this depends upon whether the defendant had notice and the opportunity to object at sentencing in the first place—a de- termination we make de novo. United States v. Hayden, 119 F.4th 832, 838 (11th Cir. 2024).

III.

A court sentencing a defendant to supervised release must impose several mandatory conditions and may order further con- ditions at its discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). The Due Process USCA11 Case: 23-11840 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2025 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11840 Clause requires district courts to pronounce any condition of su- pervised release, other than those mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), at the defendant’s sentencing hearing. United States v. Rodriguez, 75 F.4th 1231, 1246 (11th Cir. 2023). The court must pronounce the conditions so that the defendant has notice and the opportunity to object to his sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Read, 118 F.4th 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2024). “When the district court includes discretion- ary conditions in the written judgment that it did not reference at the sentencing hearing, we vacate the conditions and remand for resentencing.” Id. District courts are not required “to individually pronounce each discretionary condition of supervised release if at sentencing the court expressly incorporates a written list detailing those con- ditions.” Rodriguez, 75 F.4th at 1249. “A reference to a written list of conditions is enough to afford a defendant the opportunity to challenge the conditions of supervised release, which is all that due process requires.” Hayden, 119 F.4th at 838.

As an initial matter, plain error is the correct standard of re- view. Thomas had notice of the conditions of his supervised release and failed to object. Here, just as in Hayden, the district court noti- fied Thomas that during his supervised release, he would be re- quired to comply with the standard conditions adopted in the Mid- dle District of Florida. See id. at 835, 838–39. The district court then asked Thomas if he had any objection to the sentence or the man- ner it was imposed before the end of the hearing, and Thomas did not raise any issues with the conditions.

USCA11 Case: 23-11840 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2025 Page: 5 of 5

23-11840 Opinion of the Court 5 Next, the district court “did not err—much less plainly err— when it failed to describe the conditions of supervised release in its oral pronouncement.” See id. at 838–39. At the hearing, the district court’s verbal reference to “a written list of conditions,” specifically the standard conditions for the Middle District of Florida, publicly available on the district court’s website, was enough to afford Thomas the opportunity to challenge the conditions of his super- vised release, “which is all that due process requires.” Id. at 838.

The written judgment “only adds details to the oral pronounce- ment.” Read, 118 F.4th at 1322.

IV.

As there was no due process violation, we AFFIRM Thomas’ sentence.