Oral Adoption of Standard Supervised Release Conditions Satisfies Due Process Notice Requirements

Introduction

United States v. Mandel Lamont Stewart, decided January 15, 2025, by the Eleventh Circuit, addresses two interrelated sentencing issues arising from Stewart’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. First, Stewart challenged the enforceability of his plea‐agreement sentence‐appeal waiver, arguing that it had not been made knowingly and voluntarily. Second, he argued that the district court’s oral pronouncement that it was imposing the “Middle District of Florida’s standard conditions” of supervised release—without listing them—deprived him of notice and the opportunity to object in violation of due process. The government sought dismissal of the appeal based on the waiver. The Eleventh Circuit denied the motion to dismiss, holding the waiver unenforceable under the record, and affirmed on the supervised‐release issue by applying its recent Hayden precedent, which permits a district court to reference a standing list of standard conditions orally.

Summary of the Judgment

The government’s motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction based on the sentence‐appeal waiver was denied because the waiver was not shown to have been made knowingly and voluntarily.
On the merits of the supervised‐release challenge, the court applied its decision in United States v. Hayden (Eleventh Circuit, 2024) to hold that an oral adoption of the Middle District of Florida’s standard conditions suffices to give notice and opportunity to object.
The judgment of the district court was therefore affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied on a well‐developed body of Eleventh Circuit law:

Sentence‐Appeal Waivers
- United States v. Johnson (541 F.3d 1064): review of waiver validity de novo; knowing and voluntary standard.
- United States v. Bushert (997 F.2d 1343): waiver is valid if the defendant clearly understood he was giving up most appellate rights.
- United States v. Boyd (975 F.3d 1185): emphasized that colloquy need not cover every exception, so long as the waiver’s broad scope was clearly conveyed.
- United States v. Weaver (275 F.3d 1320): waiver valid where plea colloquy referenced it and the defendant confirmed understanding.
- King v. United States (41 F.4th 1363): waiver bars frivolous and non‐frivolous appeals alike.
- Buchanan v. United States (131 F.3d 1005): motions to enforce waivers should be decided early; carrying them with the case is disfavored.
Supervised Release Conditions
- United States v. Rodriguez (75 F.4th 1231): due process requires oral pronouncement of discretionary conditions.
- United States v. Hayden (119 F.4th 832): Eleventh Circuit held that a district court may orally adopt a district’s standard supervised release conditions by reference without reciting each one.

Legal Reasoning

The opinion proceeds in two parts:

Validity of the Sentence‐Appeal Waiver:
Under Johnson and Bushert, appellate waivers are valid only if made knowingly and voluntarily. The government must show that the defendant was clearly informed he was giving up most appellate rights. Here, the plea colloquy did not sufficiently convey the waiver’s breadth, and the record did not otherwise demonstrate Stewart’s full understanding. Unlike in Boyd and Weaver, there was no explicit warning that he could not appeal within‐guidelines sentences or detailed colloquy on the waiver. Accordingly, the waiver was unenforceable, and the government’s motion to dismiss was denied.
Notice of Standard Conditions of Supervised Release:
Supervised release conditions are part of the sentence and thus must be pronounced in court to satisfy due process (Rodriguez). Hayden clarified that a district court may comply by orally referencing a publicly available set of standard conditions—such as those in a standing administrative order—thereby giving defendants fair notice and an opportunity to object. Stewart argued that a mere reference was insufficient, but under the Eleventh Circuit’s prior precedent rule, Hayden is binding. The court held that Hayden controls: oral adoption of the Middle District’s standard conditions gave Stewart notice and opportunity to object, so there was no error.

Impact

This decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit’s strict standard for enforcing sentence‐appeal waivers, ensuring that defendants cannot be deemed to have waived appellate rights without an explicit and understandable explanation on the record.
It cements Hayden’s rule that courts may simplify sentencing hearings by adopting standard supervised‐release conditions by reference, reducing unnecessary recitation without compromising due process.
District courts within the Eleventh Circuit will now confidently rely on their local standard‐conditions forms or standing administrative orders, knowing that an oral reference complies with constitutional notice requirements.
Defense counsel must remain vigilant: to preserve objections to supervised release conditions, they should review standard conditions in advance and lodge any challenges at sentencing, even when courts adopt them by reference.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sentence‐Appeal Waiver: A contractual term in a plea agreement where a defendant agrees not to appeal the sentence, subject to limited exceptions. It must be explained clearly to the defendant in open court for enforceability.
Rule 11 Plea Colloquy: The procedure by which a federal judge questions a defendant to ensure the plea is voluntary, informed, and has a factual basis. It is the key moment to explain and confirm waiver provisions.
Supervised Release: A post‐prison term of court‐supervised correctional monitoring, similar to probation, with mandatory and discretionary conditions tailored to offenders.
Plain Error Review: A deferential appellate standard applied when an objection was not preserved at trial or sentencing. The appellant must show a clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights.
Due Process in Sentencing: The constitutional requirement that a defendant receive notice of the complete sentence—including conditions—and an opportunity to object before imposition.

Conclusion

United States v. Stewart clarifies two important sentencing principles in the Eleventh Circuit. First, plea-agreement sentence-appeal waivers will not be enforced absent clear, on-the-record evidence that defendants were made fully aware of their broad scope. Second, consistent with United States v. Hayden, district courts satisfy due process notice requirements by orally adopting a district’s standard supervised release conditions by reference. Together, these holdings strike a balance between procedural fairness—ensuring defendants understand and can challenge their sentences—and judicial efficiency—allowing courts to streamline pronouncements of routine conditions.