June 12, 2019
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 15 CR188-8 - John
Z. Lee, Judge.
Wood, Chief Judge, and Barrett and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.
Gawron is a citizen of Poland, but she has lived in the
United States for the last 17 years. She became mixed up in a
complex scheme that landed her in federal court facing
charges of wire fraud. Once there, she pleaded guilty to one
count and was sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison,
and two years of supervised release. Her appeal focuses on
the latter part of the sentence: she contends that the
district court erred by imposing any term of
supervised release, because she is likely to be deported
after her imprisonment. She also argues that the
supervised-release condition confining her to the district
where she is being supervised is flawed because the condition
contains no scienter requirement. Finally, she asserts that
the court's written judgment conflicts with its oral
pronouncement of this condition.
we find that Gawron's first two arguments lack merit, her
argument about scienter would have warranted relief if she
had properly preserved it. As for the third, we agree with
both parties that the written judgment must be amended to
conform to the court's oral pronouncement.
and her husband, Kazimierz Motyka, were two members of a
credit-card fraud scheme. They provided their personal
information to another person, who then misrepresented their
income to obtain credit cards in their names. Equipped with
the cards, Gawron and Motyka then made purchases (including
two luxury cars) without intending to pay the credit-card
bills. They created two new corporations with a mobile
payment processing terminal and swiped other
participants' credit cards through the terminal. When
they could not repay their debts, they declared bankruptcy.
Both were indicted, and Gawron eventually pleaded guilty to
one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
the 2016 edition of the Sentencing Guidelines, which was
effective from November 1, 2016, to November 1, 2018, the
Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report.
It calculated a Guidelines range of one to three years of
supervised release but added that the court
"ordinarily" should not impose supervision on a
defendant who would likely be removed from the country after
her release from prison. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) cmt. n.5.
The PSR also recommended a discretionary condition
prohibiting Gawron from leaving the "jurisdiction"
where she is being supervised without permission. Gawron
objected to the PSR and to two conditions of supervised
release, but she did not single out either the general
imposition of supervision or the condition prohibiting her
from leaving the jurisdiction. In fact, after stating her two
objections to conditions of supervision, she represented that
she "does not object to the remaining conditions."
sentencing hearing, Gawron reiterated her two objections.
Again, she did not take the position that supervised release
should be skipped because of her likely removal, nor did she
contest the condition restricting her movement. When asked by
the court about the likelihood of deportation, Gawron's
counsel responded that immigration proceedings had started
and that her deportation was not a matter of "if,"
but "when." When the court asked if Gawron had any
additional objections to the term of supervision or to the
sentence, Gawron's counsel stated that there were no
issues that needed to be addressed.
noted earlier, the court imposed a prison sentence of 12
months and one day (below the lower limit recommended by the
Guidelines), along with a two-year term of supervision. It
explained that it chose to include supervision because of
Gawron's need to reintegrate into society upon release if
she was not deported after her incarceration. The court added
that the conditions of supervision would require Gawron to
secure employment, regain financial stability, and pay
restitution. It acknowledged that Gawron's children would
face significant difficulties if both parents were
incarcerated at the same time, and so the court granted
Gawron's request to delay reporting to prison until
Motyka's release. In the meantime, Gawron would be
subject to the conditions of her pretrial supervision.
reading aloud the supervised-release conditions, the district
Defendant shall remain within the jurisdiction where
defendant is being supervised, unless granted permission to
leave by the Court or the probation officer. By jurisdiction
I mean the federal judicial district in which defendant is
being supervised, such as the Northern District of Illinois.
written judgment, however, omitted the critical last
sentence, and thus does not clarify that
"jurisdiction" refers to the federal judicial