United States v. Bartsma

How courts have described this case

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

• holding as matter of first impression that district court must give “reasonable pre-sentence notice” before ordering sex offender registration as a special condition
• noting that factual findings of the district court are afforded substantial deference
• “Having determined [the defendant] was entitled to notice, we do not reach the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing the sex-offender-registration requirement in this case.”
• reversing sex-offender-registration condition for defendant convicted for illegally possessing a firearm because defendant did not receive required notice; not reaching merits of argument that condition was invalid because it was not reasonably related to offense
• “Not requiring notice would be inconsistent with Rule 32’s purpose of promoting focused, adversarial resolution of the legal and factual issues relevant to fixing Guidelines sentences.” (quotation omitted)
• Bums violated where the court, without prior notice to parties that it contemplated doing so, imposed sex offender registration requirement as condition of supervised release

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).