U.S. v. Anstice

Dist. Ct did not err in including in written judgment on defendant’s conviction on drug distribution charges, three of five conditions of supervised release that were listed as mandated by federal statute, even though Dist. Ct. had failed to mention them orally during sentencing hearing. Typically, if inconsistency exists between oral and later written sentence, sentence pronounced orally from bench controls. However, because said conditions were mandated by statute, they were valid parts of defendant’s sentence even though they were not mentioned during sentencing hearing. However, remaining two conditions, i.e., requirement that defendant report to probation officer within 72 hours from his release from prison and obligation to refrain from possession of firearm are only discretionary conditions and were not part of his sentence. As such Dist. Ct. will be given another opportunity to include them as part of defendant’s sentence on remand.