U.S. v. Dodds

Dist. Ct. erred in imposing as term of supervised release restriction on consumption of alcohol that failed to define excessive use of alcohol at blood alcohol concentration of greater than .08 percent, where Dist. Ct. had included said definition at oral pronouncement of instant condition of supervised release. Accordingly, said definition will be included in written judgment. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly impose condition allowing probation officer to search defendant’s home, where officer has reasonable suspicion that defendant might have violated any condition of supervised release. However, defendant waived all other objections to terms of his supervised release, where defendant failed to include said objections in his sentencing memorandum and had failed to raise said objections at his sentencing hearing, although Dist. Ct. had invited him to do so. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that record showed only “inaction” on his part with respect to raising objections to terms of his supervised release so as to allow him to raise said objections on appeal under plain error standard.