April 24, 2019
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. No.
l:15-CR-25-TLS-SLC-l - Theresa L. Springmann, Chief Judge.
Kanne, Hamilton, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.
HAMILTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Charles D. St. Clair admitted that he violated several
conditions of his supervised release. The district court
revoked his release and sentenced him to another term of
imprisonment, followed by an additional term of supervised
release. St. Clair appeals the conditions for the new term of
supervised release. He argues first that the district court
failed to justify the twelve discretionary conditions it
ordered. He also argues that the court violated his due
process rights by imposing a vague condition based on a
superseded version of the Sentencing Guidelines.
affirm. St. Clair waived his right to challenge his
supervised release conditions at his revocation hearing when
he (1) acknowledged that he received prior notice of the
proposed conditions and discussed them with counsel, and then
(2) told the judge that he had no objections to or questions
about them when asked.
Factual and Procedural Background
September 2016, St. Clair pleaded guilty to unlawful
possession of a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). Before his sentencing, the district court
notified St. Clair in writing that it proposed to impose six
mandatory and fourteen discretionary conditions of supervised
release. The court later sentenced St. Clair to thirty-three
months in prison and a year of supervised release, including
all twenty proposed conditions. St. Clair did not appeal.
Clair began his original term of supervised release in August
2017. Within the first month, he started violating the
conditions of his release. By December, the government had
moved to revoke St. Clair's release, citing sixteen
violations of release conditions by using marijuana, failing
to submit to drug tests, and not reporting to probation. A
probation officer prepared a written "summary report of
violations" recommending that the court sentence St.
Clair to imprisonment followed by supervised release and that
the court also impose seventeen of the twenty conditions from
St. Clair's original term of supervision.
revocation hearing in April 2018, St. Clair admitted to the
sixteen violations. Critical to our decision, when the judge
asked about the proposed conditions of supervised release,
defense counsel confirmed that he had reviewed the conditions
with St. Clair and explained them to him, and St. Clair said
that he had no objections to or questions about them. St.
Clair also waived a formal reading of the conditions and
acknowledged that the court might later incorporate them by
reference. The court then revoked St. Clair's supervised
release and sentenced him to another year in prison, followed
by another year-long term of supervision. With no objection
from St. Clair, the court included the seventeen proposed
supervised release conditions in the revocation sentence.
Clair challenges the discretionary conditions of supervised
release, which he says the court never justified. He also
contests one of the conditions-forbidding him from
"physically, voluntarily, and intentionally be[ing]
present at a place that he knows or has reason to know ...
controlled substances are illegally sold, used, manufactured,
distributed, or administered." He argues the
condition-especially its use of the term "place"-is
impermissibly vague and based on inaccurate information
because the court cited an outdated version of the Sentencing
Guidelines. (The United States Sentencing Commission removed
a version of this standard but discretionary condition from
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c) beginning in November 2016, after
St. Clair's original sentencing but well before his April
2018 revocation hearing.)
government argues that St. Clair has waived these arguments
by opting not to present them to the district court. We agree
with the government's waiver argument. St. Clair
expressly acknowledged at the revocation hearing that he had
reviewed the conditions with his lawyer and that he did not
object to any of them. That is quintessential waiver for
supervised release conditions, as it is for other matters,
such as jury instructions. See United States v.
Gabriel, 831 F.3d 811, 814 (7th Cir. 2016) (defendant
waived objections to supervised release conditions where,
after receiving advance notice of proposed conditions,
defense said it had no objections to conditions); United
States v. Block, 825 F.3d 862, 873-74 (7th Cir. 2016)
(same, except for one express objection); United States
v. Lewis, 823 F.3d 1075, 1082-23 (7th Cir. 2016)
sentencing in the district court is the main event."
Lewis, 823 F.3d at 1083. A defendant who receives
advance notice of proposed conditions of supervised release
has both the benefit of advice of counsel and a full
opportunity to raise objections about arguably vague or
unjustified conditions of supervised release. Sentencing in
the district court is the time to raise such issues, not on
appeal, for the first time. And with conditions of supervised
release, both the defendant and the ...