Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michael Chase Watson pleaded guilty in the Southern District of Texas to receipt and possession of child pornography. At sentencing, the district court imposed discretionary conditions of supervised release that had been listed in the presentence report (PSR) and its appendix. Watson’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, but Watson nonetheless appealed, challenging whether the discretionary supervised release conditions were adequately pronounced at sentencing.
Watson’s principal argument on appeal was that the district court erred by failing to expressly inquire, on the record, whether he had reviewed the presentence report and its appendix with counsel before sentencing proceeded — a step he contended was required before discretionary conditions enumerated only in the PSR could be imposed.
The Court’s Holding
A per curiam panel of Judges Davis, Wilson, and Douglas affirmed the sentence. The court declined to address whether Watson’s appeal waiver barred the challenge, proceeding instead to the merits. Applying plain-error review, the panel held that Watson failed to demonstrate the district court erred by not expressly asking him on the record whether he had reviewed the PSR with counsel. The court found that the record supported the conclusion that Watson had an opportunity to review the PSR with counsel and that a reasonable inference existed that he in fact did so, consistent with the circuit’s prior decision in United States v. Villafana-Mondragon, 170 F.4th 360 (5th Cir. 2026).
Judge Douglas concurred in the judgment but wrote separately to reiterate her view — consistent with her dissent in Villafana-Mondragon — that the better and correct practice under the en banc decision in United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020), is for district courts to affirmatively confirm on the record that a defendant reviewed the PSR before sentencing proceeds. She agreed the panel was bound by Villafana-Mondragon but signaled ongoing disagreement with that precedent.
Key Takeaways
- Under Villafana-Mondragon, a district court need not expressly ask a defendant on the record whether he reviewed the PSR with counsel; a reasonable inference from the overall record is sufficient to satisfy the requirement.
- Watson’s appeal waiver was not enforced, but the court found no plain error on the merits regardless.
- Judge Douglas’s concurrence flags a live intra-circuit tension: she reads the en banc Diggles decision to require an affirmative, on-the-record PSR-review confirmation — a stricter standard than the inference-based approach the majority applied.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s current rule, established in Villafana-Mondragon, that sentencing courts can satisfy the PSR-review requirement through record inference rather than explicit on-the-record inquiry. Defense counsel in the Fifth Circuit should be aware that failing to object at sentencing to a court’s silence on PSR review will trigger plain-error review — a difficult standard to meet under existing precedent.
Judge Douglas’s concurrence signals that the tension between Villafana-Mondragon and the en banc Diggles decision remains unresolved and could prompt further en banc review. Until then, district courts in the Fifth Circuit would be well advised to follow Judge Douglas’s guidance and make an express on-the-record inquiry, both to comply with the spirit of Diggles and to insulate sentences from appellate challenge.