United States v. Baxter: Fifth Circuit Re-Affirms That “Submission-to-Search” Conditions on Supervised Release Must Be Orally Pronounced

Introduction

United States v. Baxter, No. 24-50051 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025) confronts the recurring tension between a sentencing court’s oral pronouncement of supervised-release (“SR”) conditions and the later memorialization of those conditions in the written judgment. Lloyd Baxter, convicted of possessing an unregistered destructive device, challenged four conditions that appeared in the written revocation judgment but were not – according to him – pronounced in open court.

The Fifth Circuit largely sided with the government, but it vacated a single condition – the requirement that Baxter submit to warrantless searches – holding that such a discretionary search condition is invalid unless expressly pronounced or validly incorporated in open court. In so doing, the court (1) officially adopted the unpublished reasoning of United States v. Guerra regarding controlled-substance prescriptions, (2) clarified how psychoactive-substance prohibitions and inpatient treatment conditions may be inferred from an oral order to undergo drug treatment, and (3) reinforced the bright-line rule that any expansion of a defendant’s obligations through a written judgment constitutes reversible “conflict” rather than harmless “ambiguity.”

Summary of the Judgment

• Sentence after probation revocation: 30 months’ imprisonment + three years’ SR.
• The district court orally:
  • Adopted all mandatory and standard conditions in its standing order;
  • Imposed participation in an “additional drug-treatment program,” including testing.
• The written judgment additionally declared that “all previous conditions of supervision remain the same,” thereby re-inserting:
  1. No possession or use of controlled substances without a valid prescription (plus disclosure to PO);
  2. Ban on psychoactive substances;
  3. Participation in an in-patient treatment program; and
  4. Submission to warrantless searches of person, residence, vehicle, and effects.
• Holding:
  • Conditions 1–3 do not conflict with the oral pronouncement (either because they are mandatory, administrative, or reasonably implied).
  • Condition 4 (search provision) does conflict and must be vacated.
  • Cause remanded for the district court to conform the judgment to its oral sentence.

Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc): Established the modern framework: discretionary SR conditions must be orally pronounced or validly incorporated; mandatory conditions need not be.
• United States v. Pelayo-Zamarripa, 81 F.4th 456 (5th Cir. 2023): Standard of review for unpronounced conditions is abuse-of-discretion.
• United States v. Baez-Adriano, 74 F.4th 292 (5th Cir. 2023): Describes forfeiture principles – whether defendant had “opportunity to object.”
• United States v. Guerra, 2023 WL 4417287 (5th Cir. 2023) (unpub.): Held that a prescription-plus-disclosure condition was no broader than the mandatory bar on unlawful possession of controlled substances. Baxter formally adopts Guerra’s reasoning, giving it precedential heft.
• Other unpublished alignments: Lozano, Roblez, Tatum, Zavala – support that psychoactive-substance bans dovetail with drug-treatment conditions; Breckenridge, Mireles, Prado – underscore that written search conditions that enlarge obligations must be stricken.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Controlled-Substance Prescription Condition
   • Mandatory § 3583(d) already prohibits unlawful possession.
   • Requiring disclosure of valid prescriptions is mere administrative “reinforcement” – it keeps the defendant within lawful use.
   • Therefore it never needed pronouncement.
2. Psychoactive-Substance Ban
   • Defendant has documented substance-abuse history (PSR ¶¶63-65).
   • Oral order for “additional drug treatment” logically entails abstention from substances that undermine the very treatment.
   • Persuasive (though unpublished) lines of cases treat such a ban as “consistent,” not conflicting.
   • Hence, no amendment required.
3. In-Patient Treatment Specification
   • Oral reference to “additional drug treatment program” ambiguous (could be in-or out-patient).
   • Record context (revocation for failing in-patient treatment) resolves ambiguity: court reasonably meant in-patient.
   • Ambiguity, unlike conflict, may be resolved without vacatur.
4. Submission-to-Search Condition
   • This is a discretionary, liberty-infringing provision.
   • Not contained in mandatory statute nor standing order.
   • Written judgment therefore expands obligations beyond what was orally adopted – a textbook conflict.
   • Remedy: vacate only that condition and remand.

3.3 Anticipated Impact

Baxter’s precedential value lies in three discrete but important points:

1. Elevating Guerra to Published Authority – By expressly “adopting its persuasive reasoning,” the Fifth Circuit effectively transforms Guerra’s unpublished holding into binding circuit precedent: adding administrative disclosure requirements to the mandatory controlled-substance ban does not require separate pronouncement.
2. Clarified Hierarchy of Drug-Related Conditions – The opinion harmonizes previously scattered unpublished decisions and offers a clear roadmap: if a psychoactive-substance ban is tied to an orally ordered drug-treatment condition and the defendant has a documented abuse history, no separate pronouncement is needed.
3. Restated Bright-Line on Search Provisions – The court’s blunt vacatur of the search condition reiterates that warrantless search clauses are never administrative. District judges must announce them in open court or clearly adopt a written list already vetted by the defendant. Expect stricter appellate review of silently inserted search conditions across the Fifth Circuit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Supervised Release (SR): A period of court-supervised liberty that follows imprisonment. Think of it as federal “probation after prison,” during which a defendant must obey specified conditions.
• Mandatory vs. Discretionary Conditions: • Mandatory – required by statute (e.g., no unlawful drug use). • Discretionary – left to judicial discretion (e.g., curfews, search clauses). Only discretionary conditions must be pronounced.
• Oral Pronouncement Rule: Because the defendant has a right to be present at sentencing, the court must state (or clearly adopt) all discretionary conditions in open court. If the written judgment later adds more, those additions are invalid.
• Conflict vs. Ambiguity: • Conflict – written judgment expands or narrows conditions; must be corrected. • Ambiguity – written text merely clarifies something that could be implied; court may resolve by looking at the whole record.
• Standard of Review: • If defendant had a chance to object below, appellate review is for plain error; if not, for abuse of discretion. • For pure pronouncement conflicts, the Fifth Circuit treats it as abuse-of-discretion.
• Standing Order Adoption: A sentencing court may adopt its own pre-published list of standard conditions if defendant reviewed it beforehand and the judge expressly incorporates it on the record.

Conclusion

United States v. Baxter cements a fine but crucial distinction in supervised-release jurisprudence: while courts may streamline sentencing by incorporating mandatory drug conditions and administrative prescription-monitoring requirements, they cannot silently append more intrusive provisions such as warrantless search clauses. The decision bolsters defendants’ Sixth-Amendment-adjacent right to be present and heard at sentencing, clarifies the doctrinal status of controlled- and psychoactive-substance conditions, and serves as a cautionary guide for district courts drafting written judgments. Going forward, practitioners should meticulously compare oral sentences to written judgments, especially for search conditions and other broad intrusions on liberty.