Background
Jerid Hinz was serving supervised release after a federal methamphetamine-distribution conviction. After a first revocation, his probation officer alleged further violations, including methamphetamine use and possession, missed drug testing, an attempted fake urine sample, reporting failures, and failure to maintain employment. Hinz admitted several violations, including committing another crime based on dismissed state charges for bail jumping and methamphetamine possession that had been read in at a state sentencing.
Hinz denied possessing a gun or participating in an alleged shooting. At the revocation hearing, the government pursued revocation based only on conduct Hinz admitted. The district court imposed the statutory maximum of 24 months’ imprisonment, with no additional supervised-release term. A later written order nevertheless stated that Hinz must register with local law-enforcement agencies and the Wisconsin attorney general before his release from confinement.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit rejected Hinz’s claim that the district court sentenced him based on inaccurate information. Although the written order incorrectly said he had violated gun-related conditions, the hearing record and order as a whole showed that the court set aside the shooting and gun-possession allegations and did not rely on them. The court permissibly considered the admitted drug-related and other violations, as well as reliable information in the original presentence report concerning Hinz’s history of violent behavior when untreated.
The court agreed, however, that the registration requirement exceeded the district court’s authority. Because Hinz received no new term of supervised release, the court could not impose a restriction effective after he completed his prison term. Any Bureau of Prisons notification duty was for the Bureau to determine and administer. The Seventh Circuit struck the registration condition and otherwise affirmed the revocation judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A mistaken statement in a written revocation order does not require resentencing when the record shows the court did not rely on the mistaken conduct.
- A revocation court may consider reliable presentence-report information about a defendant’s history and characteristics.
- Absent a new supervised-release term, a district court lacks authority to impose a post-imprisonment registration requirement.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between an error in a written order and actual reliance on inaccurate information at sentencing. It also reinforces that post-custody restrictions must rest on statutory authority, ordinarily through a term of supervised release.
The panel specifically cautioned that imposing this registration requirement on defendants leaving prison without supervision is beyond a district court’s authority.