Mathis v. Goldberg

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “in principle” plain error should apply, but in practice it generally will not
• noting that polygraph testing is not a necessary or invariable part of sex-offender treatment
• reviewing a sentencing challenge de novo because the defendant “could not have known before issuance of the written judgment that the District Court would include” the challenged condition
• remanding on other grounds without questioning the special condition 2 that authorized the release of available psychological and psychiatric evaluations 3 and reports, including the presentence investigation report, to treatment 4 provider
• finding error where defendant knew a condition proposed by the PSR might be imposed, but “could not have known before issuance of the written judgment that the District Court would include” it
• reviewing a requirement included in a supervised release condition de novo, where defendant lacked notice of the requirement at sentencing because the requirement was added in the written judgment and not mentioned at sentencing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).