United States v. Carlson

76 F. App'x 393
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedSeptember 30, 2003
DocketNo. 03-1070
StatusPublished

This text of 76 F. App'x 393 (United States v. Carlson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Carlson, 76 F. App'x 393 (2d Cir. 2003).

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Stanley H. Carlson appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Elfvin, /.). Carlson pled guilty to possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), and was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. In an earlier appeal, we vacated a special condition of supervised release banning computer use or possession, and remanded for imposition of a less restrictive condition. See United States v. Carlson, 47 Fed.Appx. 598 (2d Cir.2002) (citing United States v. Sofsky, 287 F.3d 122 (2d Cir.2002)). In this appeal, Carlson challenges the condition imposed on remand.

The government concedes that the district court erred in resentencing Carlson by imposing a written condition not imposed orally, and that Carlson did not have an adequate opportunity to contest the written condition. Carlson suggests that we remand for imposition of a written condition conforming to the oral sentence, but there is no agreement as to what the oral sentence means. We therefore decline to order conformance. See United States v. DeMartino, 112 F.3d 75, 82 (2d Cir.1997) (“In light of the lack of clarity in the record as to [the reasoning behind the sentence], we decline to order that the oral sentence that was imposed be embodied in a written judgment.”). We also decline to reach the parties’ arguments respecting the propriety of the written condition. The special condition of supervised release is vacated, and the case remanded for resentencing.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Vincent Demartino, AKA Chickie
112 F.3d 75 (Second Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Gregory Sofsky
287 F.3d 122 (Second Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Carlson
47 F. App'x 598 (Second Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 F. App'x 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carlson-ca2-2003.