United States v. Willie D. Hayden
Citation119 F.4th 832
Date Filed2024-10-03
Docket19-14780
Cited20 times
StatusPublished
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
USCA11 Case: 19-14780 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024 Page: 1 of 12
[PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 19-14780
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PlaintiďŹ-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE D. HAYDEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cr-00025-SPC-MRM-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 19-14780 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024 Page: 2 of 12
2 Opinion of the Court 19-14780
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LUCK and ED CARNES, Cir-
cuit Judges.
WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge:
This appeal requires us to decide whether a within-guideline
sentence is substantively unreasonable and whether the district
court erred when it imposed the standard conditions of supervised
release at sentencing without orally describing each condition. Wil-
lie Hayden pleaded guilty to distribution of heroin and possession
with intent to distribute heroin. See 21 U.S.C. § 841. The district
court sentenced Hayden to 170 months of imprisonment and im-
posed a three-year term of supervised release, subject to the âstand-
ard conditionsâ for the district. In its oral pronouncement, the dis-
trict court did not describe each standard condition, but in its writ-
ten judgment, the district court described the standard conditions
in detail. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in
sentencing Hayden within the guideline range and did not err
when it did not orally describe each standard condition of super-
vised release, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
After serving a term of imprisonment for drug traďŹcking,
Willie Hayden was released from prison and began serving a term
of supervised release. Within a year, a detective in the Lee County
SheriďŹâs OďŹce received a tip from an informant that Hayden was
selling heroin. At the direction of the detective, the informant pur-
chased heroin from Hayden on two occasions. Based on these
transactions, the sheriďŹâs oďŹce obtained a warrant to search
USCA11 Case: 19-14780 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024 Page: 3 of 12
19-14780 Opinion of the Court 3
Haydenâs house. During the search, oďŹcers found 29 bags of her-
oin. Hayden was arrested and pleaded guilty to distribution of her-
oin and possession with intent to distribute heroin. See 21 U.S.C.
§ 841.
The probation oďŹce prepared a presentence investigation
report that stated that Haydenâs total oďŹense level was 29. That in-
cluded an enhancement for career oďŹender status based on Hay-
denâs felony convictions in 2005 and 2012. It also included a reduc-
tion for accepting responsibility. The report assigned Hayden a
criminal history category of VI. Based on his oďŹense level and crim-
inal history category, the report calculated a guideline range of 151
to 188 months of imprisonment. The report stated that the statu-
tory-maximum term was 20 years for each of the counts to which
Hayden pleaded guilty.
The report also discussed Haydenâs history of mental health
challenges, learning disabilities, lower-than-average intelligence,
and substance abuse. It detailed Haydenâs âlong historyâ of abusing
alcohol, marijuana, and ecstasy. It discussed Haydenâs school rec-
ords, which revealed his learning disability, emotional disorders,
and lower-than-average intelligence. Hayden also provided the dis-
trict court with a forensic neuropsychological evaluation con-
ducted by Dr. Robert Ouaou. It stated that Haydenâs intelligence
quotient tested at 84âthe 14th percentile. Dr. Ouaouâs evaluation
also concluded that Hayden exhibited multiple cognitive deďŹcits of-
ten found in patients with central nervous system damage,
USCA11 Case: 19-14780 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024 Page: 4 of 12
4 Opinion of the Court 19-14780
including learning and memory deďŹcits and signiďŹcant impair-
ments in executive function.
Hayden requested a prison sentence of 151 months. He ar-
gued that a lower sentence was warranted because he was a good
father, no one was hurt during his crimes, and his neurological
problems were a mitigating factor. He presented letters from fam-
ily members and friends that recounted his good qualities and Dr.
Ouaouâs evaluation.
The government requested a sentence at the high end of the
guideline range. The government argued that a longer sentence
was warranted because Hayden committed the oďŹenses while on
supervised release, exhibited a lack of respect for the law, and posed
a risk of reoďŹending.
The district court imposed a sentence of 170 months of im-
prisonment. It stated that it had reviewed the guidelines and the
presentence investigation report and considered the arguments of
counsel and the statutory sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
It explained that it sentenced Hayden to 170 months because he
had oďŹended while on supervised release, the oďŹenses were seri-
ous, Hayden had showed little respect for the law, and he needed to
be deterred from future criminal conduct.
The district court also imposed a three-year term of super-
vised release. It stated that while Hayden was on supervised release,
he would âneed to comply with the mandatory and standard con-
ditions adopted by the Court in the Middle District.â The district
court then explained that Hayden would also be subject to special
USCA11 Case: 19-14780 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024 Page: 5 of 12
19-14780 Opinion of the Court 5
conditions of supervised release and described each of those spe-
cial conditions.
After it imposed the sentence, the district court asked if
counsel had âan objection to the sentence or the manner in which
the Court has pronounced [it].â Haydenâs lawyer asked that Hay-
den be recommended for mental health treatment, and the district
court did so. Haydenâs lawyer then objected to the application of
the career-oďŹender guideline and objected that the sentence was
greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing. He raised
no other objections to the sentence or how the district court pro-
nounced it.
The district court then entered a ďŹnal judgment with a writ-
ten order. The written judgment included a list of 13 standard con-
ditions of supervised release. These conditions matched the stand-
ard conditions in the form for the Middle District of Florida, which
is available on the district court website. See Form AO 245B Judgment
in a Criminal Case, U.S. DIST. CT. FOR THE MIDDLE DIST. OF FLA., at
6, https://perma.cc/5PHV-Q76Q (last visited Oct. 3, 2024). These
standard conditions also matched the conditions in the relevant
sentencing guideline. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Man-
ual § 5D1.3 (Nov. 2023).
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence un-
der a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We ordinarily review the imposition of dis-
cretionary conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion,
USCA11 Case: 19-14780 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024 Page: 6 of 12
6 Opinion of the Court 19-14780
United States v. Etienne, 102 F.4th 1139, 1144 (11th Cir. 2024), but
when a defendant fails to raise his objection in the district court,
we review for plain error, United States v. Carpenter, 803 F.3d 1224,
1237 (11th Cir. 2015).
III. DISCUSSION
We divide our discussion in two parts. First, we explain that
Haydenâs sentence is substantively reasonable. Second, we explain
that the district court did not err by imposing the standard condi-
tions of supervised release for the district without orally describing
each condition.
A. The District Court Did Not Impose
a Substantively Unreasonable Sentence.
Hayden argues that his sentence is substantively unreasona-
ble because the district court did not give enough weight to his
neurological issues and gave too much weight to the fact that he
was on supervised release at the time of the offenses. The govern-
ment responds that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
We agree with the government.
A district court must impose a sentence that is âsufficient,
but not greater than necessary,â to reflect the offenseâs gravity, de-
ter criminal conduct, protect public safety, and rehabilitate the de-
fendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)â(2). A sentence is substantively un-
reasonable when it â(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant fac-
tors [listed in section 3553] that were due significant weight,
(2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
(3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper
USCA11 Case: 19-14780 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024 Page: 7 of 12
19-14780 Opinion of the Court 7
factors.â United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010)
(en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). How
much weight to assign to a particular factor is within the discretion
of the district court. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249,
1254 (11th Cir. 2015). But unwarranted reliance on a single factor
may be a âsymptomâ of unreasonableness. United States v. Pugh, 515
F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008).
We vacate a sentence only if we are âleft with the definite
and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error
of judgment in weighing the [section] 3553(a) factors by arriving at
a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dic-
tated by the facts of the case.â Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). The burden of establishing the
unreasonableness of a sentence is on the party challenging the sen-
tence. United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008).
Hayden fails to meet that burden.
Hayden argues that the district court failed to give weight to
his neurological issues, which were, in Haydenâs view, a mitigating
factor due significant weight. But the district court did not fail to
give weight to Haydenâs neurological problems. It stated that it
considered the presentence investigation report and the arguments
of counsel, which referenced and explained these issues. The report
discussed Haydenâs learning disability, emotional disorder, and
lower-than-average intelligence. Counsel also raised Haydenâs neu-
rological issues before sentencing. Counsel referenced Dr. Ouaouâs
USCA11 Case: 19-14780 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024 Page: 8 of 12
8 Opinion of the Court 19-14780
report and explained his clientâs mental challenges as described in
the presentence investigation report.
Although the district court did not specifically state that it
considered Haydenâs neurological issues, it was not required to do
so. United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007)
(â[A]lthough the district courtâs sentencing order made no mention
of evidence that arguably mitigated in Amedeoâs favor . . . we can-
not say that the courtâs failure to discuss this âmitigatingâ evidence
means that the court erroneously âignoredâ or failed to consider this
evidence in determining Amedeoâs sentence.â). That the record re-
flects that the district court considered all the factors is enough. See
United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013). The
district court also made clear its awareness of Haydenâs mental is-
sues when it referred him for mental health treatment.
Hayden contends that the district court gave too much
weight to the fact that Hayden was on supervised release at the
time of the offenses. But the district court has broad discretion in
how much weight to give each sentencing factor. Rosales-Bruno,
789 F.3d at 1254. Although unjustified reliance on a single factor
may be a âsymptomâ of unreasonableness, Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1191,
the district court also based Haydenâs sentence on his demon-
strated disrespect for the law, the severity of his offenses, and the
need to deter Hayden from committing future crimes.
The sentence imposed was within the guideline range and
below the statutory maximum. A sentence within the guideline
range and below the statutory maximum is ordinarily expected to
USCA11 Case: 19-14780 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024 Page: 9 of 12
19-14780 Opinion of the Court 9
be reasonable. See United States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d 633, 656 (11th
Cir. 2014) (explaining that a sentence within the guideline range
and below the statutory maximum suggests reasonableness); see
also United States v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1364 (11th Cir. 2014)
(explaining that a sentence below the statutory maximum is an in-
dicator of reasonableness). Because the district court stated that it
considered the statutory factors, did not rely on any single factor,
acted within its discretion in assigning weight to each factor, and
arrived at a within-guideline sentence well below the statutory
maximum, the sentence is substantively reasonable.
B. The District Court Did Not Err in Imposing, But Not Describing,
Each Standard Condition of Supervised Release at Sentencing.
Hayden argues that the district court erred when it did not
orally pronounce at sentencing each of the standard conditions of
supervised release and instead enumerated the conditions only in
the written judgment. He asserts that by stating only that it was
imposing the âstandard conditionsâ of supervised release, the dis-
trict court ran afoul of our precedent in United States v. Rodriguez,
75 F.4th 1231, 1246 (11th Cir. 2023). Hayden contends that because
the conditions were not orally enumerated, he did not have the op-
portunity to object to them, and we should review for abuse of dis-
cretion. The government argues that Hayden could have objected
but did not, so his challenge should be reviewed for plain error.
The government contends that the district court did not plainly err
because the standard conditions in the written judgment match the
standard conditions codified in the sentencing guideline. See
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c). We again agree with the government.
USCA11 Case: 19-14780 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024 Page: 10 of 12
10 Opinion of the Court 19-14780
We first address the standard of review. When a defendant
fails to object at sentencing to the conditions of supervised release,
we ordinarily review for plain error. Carpenter, 803 F.3d at 1237.
But we decide de novo whether a defendant âhad no opportunity to
object at sentencing because the court included the [condition] for
the first time in its written final judgment.â Rodriguez, 75 F.4th at
1246n.5 (quoting parenthetically United States v. Bull,214 F.3d 1275, 1278
(11th Cir. 2000)).
Hayden argues that he had no chance to object to the con-
ditions of supervised release at sentencing because the district court
did not orally describe each of the 13 âstandard conditionsâ; it in-
stead listed them only in the written judgment. But Hayden had an
opportunity to object and request that the district court orally pro-
nounce the conditions. After the district court imposed a three-year
term of supervised release, during which Hayden would âneed to
comply with the mandatory and standard conditions adopted by
the Court in the Middle District,â the district court asked the parties
if there were any objections to the sentence or how the district
court had pronounced it. Defense counsel raised some objections
but did not object to the conditions of supervised release.
That Hayden had notice of the conditions of supervised re-
lease distinguishes this appeal from our decision in Rodriguez. Ro-
driguez addressed only the situation where the district court did not
reference any conditions of supervised release during the sentenc-
ing hearing. 75 F.4th at 1240. The district court explained only that
the defendant would be âplaced on supervised release.â Id. It then
USCA11 Case: 19-14780 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024 Page: 11 of 12
19-14780 Opinion of the Court 11
included discretionary conditions of supervised release in its writ-
ten judgment. Id. We reversed because the defendant had âno no-
tice or opportunity to be heardâ on the conditions of supervised
release. Id. at 1246. Here, by contrast, Hayden did have notice: the
district court informed him that there were standard conditions at-
tached to his supervised release. And the district court asked for
objections before ending the hearing. Because Hayden did not ob-
ject to the failure to describe each of the âstandard conditionsâ of
supervised release, we review his challenge for plain error.
To satisfy due process, the district court must pronounce the
sentence so that the defendant has ânotice of the sentence and an
opportunity to object.â Id. at 1247 (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). A district court can violate a defendantâs due-pro-
cess right when its oral pronouncement differs from the written
judgment that it later enters. Id. A failure to pronounce discretion-
ary conditions of supervised release violates due process, but a fail-
ure to pronounce mandatory conditions ordinarily does not. Id.; see
also United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 557 (5th Cir. 2020). If the
written judgment and the oral pronouncement do not unambigu-
ously conflict, the written judgment governs. United States v. Pur-
cell, 715 F.2d 561, 563 (11th Cir. 1983). A reference to a written list
of conditions is enough to afford a defendant the opportunity to
challenge the conditions of supervised release, which is all that due
process requires. Rodriguez, 75 F.4th at 1246â47.
Because the district court orally referenced the 13 discretion-
ary standard conditions of supervised release for the Middle
USCA11 Case: 19-14780 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024 Page: 12 of 12
12 Opinion of the Court 19-14780
District of Florida and because the oral pronouncement and writ-
ten judgment do not conflict, it did not errâmuch less plainly errâ
when it failed to describe the conditions of supervised release in its
oral pronouncement. The district court told Hayden that, during
his term of supervised release, he would have to comply with âthe
mandatory and standard conditions adopted by the Court in the
Middle District.â In the written judgment, the district court stated
those conditions. The conditions are listed in the publicly available
judgment form and track the standard conditions of supervised re-
lease in the relevant sentencing guideline. See Middle District of Flor-
ida Form AO 245B; U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c). The oral pronouncement
and the written judgment also do not conflict; the written judg-
ment specifies what the oral pronouncement had already declared.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM Haydenâs sentence.