US v. Ortiz-Rodriguez
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The First Circuit upheld the revocation of Roberto Ortiz-Rodríguez’s supervised release and his resulting 14-month prison sentence. Although the panel agreed that Ortiz was not given adequate written notice that the government would treat his drug use as a Grade B ‘new crime’ violation, it found no plain error because Ortiz failed to show prejudice and the district court’s ultimate decision was supported by uncontested evidence.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 requires the government to give a defendant specific written notice of the particular supervised-release condition (or statutory crime) alleged to have been violated, or whether notice of the underlying conduct alone suffices.
Circuit Positions
Notice of the conduct alone satisfies Rule 32.1; citation to the specific supervised-release condition or statute is unnecessary.
Rule 32.1 requires written notice identifying the specific supervised-release condition violated (and, when relevant, the precise crime); mere description of conduct is insufficient.
Conflict Summary
Some circuits hold that it is enough for the revocation petition to describe the alleged conduct underlying the violation, without citing the precise supervised-release condition or statutory offense. Other circuits require the government to identify the specific condition allegedly violated (and, if a new crime is charged, the particular statute), so that the defendant can prepare a defense. The First Circuit, in the present opinion, joins the latter view and finds inadequate notice when only the conduct was listed.