U.S. v. Bloch

Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing as part of sentence on charge of illegal possession of firearm three-year term of supervised release that included term requiring defendant to allow probation officer to make visits at home or elsewhere. Ct. rejected argument that he was entitled to remand due to Dist. Ct.’s failure to articulate separate section 3553(a) analysis to explain its imposition of term of supervision, where Dist. Ct. had provided said analysis with respect to its imposition of term of incarceration. Moreover, Dist. Ct. was not required to orally pronounce each term of supervised release at sentencing hearing, where it had previously informed defendant in writing of its proposed conditions of supervised release and gave explanation for each condition, and where it incorporated said conditions by reference during its oral pronouncement at sentencing hearing. Also, Dist. Ct. gave adequate explanation for imposition of home visit condition, where Dist. Ct. expressed concern that defendant had prior difficulty in complying with conditions of supervised release, and that defendant posed high risk of recidivism.