United States of America v. Ronald Randolf Johnson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD RANDOLF JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-30079
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00018-SEH-1
ORDER*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 12, 2014**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Ronald Randolf Johnson appeals the twelve-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to one count of acquiring or obtaining possession
of a controlled substance by deception in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(3). He
FILED
DEC 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

further challenges the condition of supervised release imposed as part of his
sentence requiring that he not possess a controlled substance under any
circumstances, even with a doctor’s prescription.
In his plea agreement, Johnson waived his right “to appeal the
reasonableness of the sentence, including conditions of probation or supervised
release, if the defendant has no objection to the calculation of the guidelines and
the sentence imposed is within or below the range provided for by that
calculation.” We recognize that the distinction between an objection to the
calculation of the Guidelines range and a request for a downward departure from
that range may not always be clear to defendants. In light of potential ambiguity,
we suggest that the United States Attorney’s Office consider using more precise
language in its appellate waivers regarding this distinction. However, in this case
Johnson was specifically admonished that his Guidelines range was six to twelve
months’ imprisonment, and he did not object to this calculation. The sentence
imposed was within the calculated Guidelines range, and thus Johnson
unambiguously waived the right to bring this appeal.
The waiver, however, does not preclude Johnson from bringing an appeal on
the basis that the sentence “exceeds the permissible statutory penalty for the crime
or violates the Constitution.” United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th Cir.
14-30079 2

-- 2 of 3 --

2007). Johnson argues that the condition of supervised release prohibiting him
from possessing lawfully prescribed controlled substances violates his
constitutional right to due process because it imposes a burden on a significant
liberty interest without an “explicit, specific finding” on a “medically-informed
record” that the condition is reasonably necessary. See United States v. Williams,
356 F.3d 1045, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We need not reach this argument, however,
because the orally imposed condition was corrected by the written judgment, which
allows Johnson to possess lawfully prescribed medication. See United States v.
Colace, 126 F.3d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(c),
presently codified at Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a)).
DISMISSED.
14-30079 3

-- 3 of 3 --