Jeffery Lynn Warden appeals his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. � 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Warden argues that the district court committed reversible error by including in its written judgment special conditions of supervised release that were not part of its oral pronouncement of sentence at the sentencing hearing, and also argues that 21 U.S.C. � 841 is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). We disagree.
Warden pleaded guilty to possessing more than 100 kilograms of marijuana and was sentenced to a 76-month term of imprisonment, a five-year term of supervised release, and a $100 mandatory special assessment. At the sentencing hearing, the judge stated that Warden should undergo a sex-offender evaluation and receive counseling, if necessary, because of his history involving crimes against children. The judge then directed the parties to “come up with some language” for an appropriate special condition of supervised release. The district court orally pronounced Warden’s sentence in relevant part as follows:
While on supervised release, the Defendant. . .shall participate in drug abuse counseling as required by the Probation Department, including inpatient or outpatient treatment as required. And. . .we already had the earlier discussions of sex offender evaluation and the conditions that flow from it and that are imposed until modified. They are reimposed here now and are part of the sentence. I think the defendant also reflects a certain degree of abusive behavior to other persons, and I want those evaluated as well for anger treatment, how to handle his own behavior.
