Background
Ronald E. Lefler appealed a judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing three months in prison followed by 33 months of supervised release. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Lefler violated his release conditions by committing larcenies of a check.
Lefler challenged both the revocation and his sentence. He argued that the evidence did not establish the larcenies and that, under United States v. Rogers, the district court improperly included in its written judgment a discretionary condition requiring him to submit his office to searches by a probation officer without orally announcing that part of the condition at the revocation hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the revocation. Applying abuse-of-discretion review, including clear-error review of factual findings, the court found no error in the district court’s determination that the larcenies were established by a preponderance of the evidence.
The court nevertheless vacated Lefler’s sentence. Although the district court orally required Lefler to submit specified places and property to probation-officer searches, it did not mention his office. Because the written judgment added the office-search requirement, it was materially inconsistent with the oral pronouncement and constituted reversible error under Rogers. The court remanded for a full resentencing.
Key Takeaways
- A supervised-release violation need be proved only by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The Fourth Circuit upheld the finding that Lefler committed the charged larcenies and therefore affirmed the revocation.
- A discretionary supervised-release condition appearing in the written judgment must be consistent with the condition orally pronounced; adding an office-search requirement required vacatur and full resentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Fourth Circuit’s rule that defendants must hear all discretionary supervised-release conditions at sentencing so they can object while present. Even when revocation itself is supported by the evidence, a material difference between the oral sentence and written judgment requires the sentence to be vacated and the case remanded for full resentencing.