Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jordan Michael Porter previously pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography and received a 10-year term of supervised release. He appealed the sentence imposed after the third revocation of that supervised-release term.
Porter argued that the written judgment conflicted with the district court’s oral sentencing pronouncement because it included a standard supervision condition that the court had not orally announced. He also challenged as overly restrictive a special condition prohibiting him from using or possessing any gaming console.
The Court’s Holding
Reviewing the oral-pronouncement issue for plain error because Porter had an opportunity to object, the Fifth Circuit found no conflict. The district court had made clear that it was reimposing conditions already included in Porter’s prior revocation judgments.
The court agreed, however, that an unconditional ban on all gaming consoles was unnecessarily restrictive under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). It narrowed the condition to prohibit Porter from using or possessing, without prior authorization, gaming consoles that permit internet access, and affirmed the sentence as modified.
Key Takeaways
- A district court may reimpose supervision conditions by clearly referring to conditions contained in prior revocation judgments without creating a conflict between its oral pronouncement and the new written judgment.
- Because Porter had an opportunity to object to the alleged pronouncement conflict, the Fifth Circuit reviewed that issue only for plain error.
- A categorical ban on every gaming console was unnecessarily restrictive; the permissible condition reaches internet-capable consoles and allows use or possession with prior authorization.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that supervision conditions must be tailored to their regulatory purpose and cannot impose broader restrictions than reasonably necessary. It also shows that the sentencing record as a whole—including an express reimposition of previously written conditions—can defeat a claimed conflict between an oral sentence and the written judgment.