United States v. Baxter

Case: 24-50051 Document: 90-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals

____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 24-50051 August 8, 2025

____________

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Lloyd Baxter,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:22-CR-202-1

______________________________

Before King, Smith, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge:

Lloyd Baxter appeals his sentence for possessing an unregistered de- structive device in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5845(a)(8) and (f)(1), 5861(d), and 5871. He asserts that part of the written judgment must be va- cated because it imposes certain conditions of supervised release (“SR”) that the district court did not orally pronounce. We affirm Baxter’s sentence in substantial part, but we vacate one of the conditions of SR and remand with instruction to conform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement.

I.

The district court initially sentenced Baxter to five years of probation. Baxter had to comply with several “additional conditions” on top of the man- datory and standard conditions of probation: (1) a prohibition on “us[ing] or possess[ing] any controlled substances” unless they were properly pre- scribed, taken in accordance with that prescription, and disclosed to the pro- bation officer, (2) a prohibition on knowingly possessing or otherwise using “any psychoactive substances (e.g., synthetic marijuana, bath salts, etc.) that impair a person’s physical or mental functioning,” (3) participation in an in- patient substance abuse treatment program, and (4) submission to reasonable searches. 1

About two months after the term of probation commenced, Baxter’s probation officer petitioned the district court for an arrest warrant, alleging that Baxter had violated the condition requiring him to participate in an inpa- tient drug treatment program by being unsuccessfully discharged from that program. The probation officer also prepared an “adjustment summary” be- fore the revocation hearing, recommending that conditions of any SR should include “participation in, and completion of, a substance abuse treatment program and mental health treatment, in addition to the previously ordered special conditions [of probation].”

Baxter pleaded true to the alleged probation violation, and the district court revoked his probation. The court acknowledged its prior leniency, and it opted to treat the revocation hearing like an “original sentencing” and “go back to square one.” The court sentenced Baxter to 30 months of impris- onment followed by three years of SR.

As to the conditions of SR, the district court orally pronounced the following:

While you’re on supervised release, you’re not to commit any other federal, state, or local crimes, and you’re to comply with the mandatory and standard conditions that have been adopted by this Court.[2] In addition, I’ll order that you submit to addi- tional drug treatment program, that you follow the rules and regulations of that program, including testing to determine whether or not you’re using.

The written revocation judgment imposed “the standard terms and conditions of supervision adopted by the Court,” as well as “participat[ion] in a substance abuse treatment program” and “submi[ssion] to substance abuse testing.” The written judgment also stated that “[a]ll previous condi- tions of supervision remain the same.”

Baxter appealed, contending that the “previous conditions of super- vision” must be stricken from the judgment because those conditions were not orally pronounced.

II.

“When ‘a defendant objects to a condition of supervised release for the first time on appeal, the standard of review depends on whether he had an opportunity to object before the district court.’” United States v. Baez- Adriano, 74 F.4th 292, 297 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Martinez, 47 F.4th 364, 366 (5th Cir. 2022)). For forfeiture purposes, that opportunity exists “when the court notifies the defendant at sentencing that conditions are being imposed.” Id. at 297 (quoting Martinez, 47 F.4th at 367). “If the defendant had the opportunity to object, we review for plain error; if the de- fendant did not, we review for abuse of discretion.” Id. “When a defendant appeals a court’s failure to pronounce a condition that later appears in the judgment, the standard of review is abuse of discretion.” United States v. Pe- layo-Zamarripa, 81 F.4th 456, 459 (5th Cir. 2023) (citation modified).

III.

“The district court must orally pronounce a sentence to respect the defendant’s right to be present for sentencing.” United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 556 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). Under Diggles, any condition of SR not required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)—i.e., discretionary conditions— must be pronounced to allow for an objection. Id. at 558–59. The district court need not always pronounce the conditions word-for-word; our prece- dent permits the court orally to adopt a written list of proposed conditions. Id. at 560–61. Such a written list might, for example, come from a PSR or a district court’s standing order that lists conditions. Id. The court satisfies the pronouncement requirement when it (1) ensures that the defendant had an opportunity to review the proposed list with counsel and (2) “orally adopt[s] the written recommendations when the defendant is in court.” Id. at 561 n.5; id. at 560–61.

Baxter avers that the written judgment includes unpronounced condi- tions that conflict with the oral pronouncement. Specifically, the written judgment states that “[a]ll previous conditions of supervision remain the same,” and Baxter asserts that some of those conditions were discretionary and unpronounced. The government responds that the court properly adopt- ed by reference the conditions contained in the court’s standing order. But that much Baxter acknowledges. His argument is different: The written judgment incorporated discretionary conditions that were not part of that standing order. Baxter identifies the following “previous conditions” that were allegedly unpronounced: 3

1. He must not “use or possess any controlled substances without a valid prescription,” and if one exists, he “must disclose the prescrip- tion information to the probation officer and follow the instructions on the prescription.”

2. He must not knowingly possess or use “any psychoactive sub- stances (e.g., synthetic marijuana, bath salts, etc.) that impair a per- son’s physical or mental functioning.”

3. He must participate in an inpatient substance abuse treatment pro- gram.

4. He must submit to reasonable searches of, inter alia, his person and property.

IV.

“When there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, we must first determine whether such discrepancy ‘is a conflict or merely an ambiguity that can be resolved by reviewing the rest of the record.’” United States v. Prado, 53 F.4th 316, 318 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551, 558 (5th Cir. 2006)). “A con- flict occurs if the written judgment broadens the restrictions or requirements of supervised release from an oral pronouncement or imposes more burden- some conditions.” Id. (citation modified). “In the event of a conflict, the written judgment must be amended to conform with the oral pronounce- ment, which controls.” Id. We address each of the four challenged condi- tions in turn.

A.

The first challenged condition relates to possession and use of con- trolled substances. We conclude that Baxter’s condition is encompassed by the mandatory conditions of § 3583(d) and the standing order that the court adopted at Baxter’s oral pronouncement. 4

In United States v. Guerra, we considered a condition of SR (1) pro- hibiting possession of controlled substances (2) without a prescription and (3) requiring the defendant to follow the instructions of any valid prescrip- tion. No. 22-40016, 2023 WL 4417287 (5th Cir. July 10, 2023) (per curiam) (unpublished). We held that such a condition need not be pronounced be- cause it is no broader than the mandatory condition. Id. at *3. That is because such a condition “merely reinforces that mandatory condition by preventing the unlawful abuse of a lawfully prescribed controlled substance: If [the de- fendant] is given a valid prescription, then he must follow the physician’s in- structions and thus remain within the realm of lawful possession of a con- trolled substance.” Id.

Although Guerra is unpublished and therefore not binding, we adopt its persuasive reasoning and hold that Baxter’s condition is no broader than the mandatory condition. 5 We note that Baxter’s condition contains a slight difference from the one in Guerra: If Baxter obtains a valid prescription for a controlled substance, he must also “disclose the prescription information to the probation officer.” But, just as in Guerra, that requirement “merely re- inforces” the mandatory condition; it administers the condition but does not broaden it. Guerra, 2023 WL 4417287, at *3.

B.

The second condition Baxter challenges—a prohibition on use and possession of psychoactive substances—does not conflict with the oral pro- nouncement because it is consistent with the requirement that Baxter partic- ipate in a substance abuse treatment program. Although our on-point cases are unpublished, we have generally found no conflict where the court orally pronounces substance abuse treatment and the written judgment prohibits psychoactive substances, especially where the defendant has a history of sub- stance abuse. 6

In United States v. Lozano, for example, we held that a defendant’s history of drug abuse and the orally pronounced condition that he participate in substance abuse treatment meant that there was no conflict when the writ- ten judgment prohibited psychoactive substances. 7 We likewise affirmed a psychoactive-substances prohibition in United States v. Roblez: “In light of Roblez’s history of substance abuse and the district court’s oral pronounce- ment of a supervised release condition that required Roblez to participate in substance . . . abuse treatment, the disputed condition[] did not conflict with the oral pronouncement of sentence.” No. 21-40586, 2022 WL 16570786 (5th Cir. Nov. 1, 2022) (per curiam) (unpublished). And in United States v. Tatum, we held that a psychoactive-substances prohibition is “consistent” with an orally pronounced condition requiring the defendant to participate in drug treatment. 8 In line with that persuasive authority, we conclude that Baxter’s psychoactive-substances condition does not conflict with the orally pronounced condition that he participate in a substance abuse treatment pro- gram.

C.

The third condition—participation in an inpatient substance abuse program—merely reflects an ambiguity in the oral pronouncement, which re- quired Baxter to submit to an “additional drug treatment program” as a con- dition of SR. The court did not expound whether the program would be in- or outpatient. 9 But context is key. The record demonstrates that Baxter’s probation was revoked for failure to complete his inpatient drug treatment program. In context, it would be entirely consistent with the oral pronounce- ment for the written judgment to reimpose inpatient treatment as a condition of supervised release. There is no conflict.

D.

Finally, the submission-to-search condition must be stricken from the written judgment because it is discretionary and conflicts with the oral pro- nouncement. 10 The written judgment’s requirement that the defendant sub- mit to searches “broadens the . . . requirements of supervised release from [the] oral pronouncement [and] imposes more burdensome conditions.” 11 We therefore vacate Baxter’s sentence as to the search condition and remand for the district court to conform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement.

Baxter’s sentence is AFFIRMED except as to the submission-to- search condition of SR. We VACATE that part of his sentence and RE- MAND for the district court to amend its written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement.